Karnegis v. Oakes, s. 74--47
| Decision Date | 26 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 74--47,74--48,s. 74--47 |
| Parties | James G. KARNEGIS, Appellant, v. Charles OAKES et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Hendricks & Hendricks, Miami, for appellant.
Bollas, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Welcher, Alfred Gustinger, Thomas N. Balikes, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
The appellant, James G. Karnegis, appeals a summary final judgment for defendants Daniel Edington and Aristides Lazzo. The appellant's action was against these two defendants and others claiming damages against all of the defendants for an alleged act of violence to plaintiff carried out pursuant to an alleged conspiracy among the defendants. After the entry of the summary final judgment for Edgington and Lazzo, the plaintiff appealed. We reverse the summary final judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Daniel Edgington, but affirm the summary final judgment entered in favor of the defendant Aristides Lazzo.
The following statement of fact is necessary for an understanding of the basis of our holdings.
The defendant, Lazzo, is a minority stockholder in Royal Baking Company, Inc., a Florida corporation. The plaintiff and his father, George D. Karnegis, and mother, Theodora Karnegis, are the majority stockholders. Civil litigation has been in progress and still exists between Lazzo and the Karnegises.
In April 1972, the defendant, Oakes, came to Miami from Denver with Herbert Edgington and met and worked with John Edgington and Dan Edgington on construction jobs on several occasions and was working with Daniel Edgington for approximately two weeks prior to the shooting incident. Daniel Edgington discussed with Oakes and Herbert Edgington that he thought Mr. Lazzo would be grateful if someone scared the hell out of the kid (plaintiff). The three of them discussed how they would scare him, including suggested phone calls and shooting at him from a block away with a rifle. Daniel knew of Oakes' criminal record. The scare incident was to be for money and Herbert Edgington quoted a figure of $21,000.00 stating it would be $7,000.00 apiece with the understanding that the money would come from Harry Lazzo. This discussion took place on September 10, 1972, and later that evening Daniel Edgington knew that Oakes and Herbert Edgington were going to do something because Herbert called Daniel in Oakes' presence to find out how to spell the plaintiff's name.
After obtaining the telephone number and address of the plaintiff, Oakes telephoned and had a conversation with the plaintiff to ascertain whether the plaintiff was the correct party.
Later in the same evening, Herbert Edgington and Oakes, armed with a pistol loaded by Herbert, drove to the home of the plaintiff, who answered a knock on his door, and upon opening the door, was asked by Oakes if his name was James Kernegis. Upon receiving an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scutieri v. Estate of Revitz
...Defendants correctly point out that there must be "substantial evidence" to connect an individual to a civil conspiracy Kernegis v. Oakes, 296 So.2d 657 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Defendants, Southeast, Mead, Paige, Fernandez, and Furns, argue that there is no genuine issue as to the commission of ......
-
Logan v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
...for all of the acts of his coconspirators." Donofrio v. Matassini , 503 So. 2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (citing Karnegis v. Oakes , 296 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) ). Logan alleges each element of a civil conspiracy claim against Morgan Lewis. He alleges an agreement among BDO and ot......
-
Raimi v. Furlong
...received some benefits from the decedent is insufficient for the imposition of liability against them. 11 See Karnegis v. Oakes, 296 So.2d 657, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 307 So.2d 450 (Fla.1975). Thus, we find that the lower court erred in finding that the appellants participate......
-
Donofrio v. Matassini, 85-2726
...only know of the scheme and assist in it in some way to be held responsible for all of the acts of his coconspirators. Karnegis v. Oakes, 296 So.2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 307 So.2d 450 (Fla.1975). The existence of a conspiracy and an individual's participation in it may be in......