Anton v. Division of Administration

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anton v. Division of Administration

308 So. 2d 50, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14470

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 11, 1975·No. No. 74-753·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant La Rossa urges on this appeal that she should be granted a new trial in an eminent domain proceeding where she considers the jury award for her property to be insufficient. She urges that a new trial is in order because the court too severely limited cross-examination by the landowner’s attorney of the condemning authority’s witnesses. We have read the record and [51]*51find that it does not support a holding of prejudicial error. There were full and complete cross-examinations of the expert witness and it is our conclusion that prejudicial error does not appear under the rule stated in Dabney v. Yapa, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So.2d 381.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant La Rossa urges on this appeal that she should be granted a new trial in an eminent domain proceeding where she considers the jury award for her property to be insufficient. She urges that a new trial is in order because the court too severely limited cross-examination by the landowner’s attorney of the condemning authority’s witnesses. We have read the record and [51]*51find that it does not support a holding of prejudicial error. There were full and complete cross-examinations of the expert witness and it is our conclusion that prejudicial error does not appear under the rule stated in Dabney v. Yapa, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So.2d 381.

Affirmed.

Anton v. Division of Administration, 308 So. 2d 50, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14470 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

308 So. 2d 50 (Anton v. Division of Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related