Arlen House East, Inc. v. Lowenstern

364 So. 2d 87, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16977
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 14, 1978
DocketNo. 77-1630
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 364 So. 2d 87 (Arlen House East, Inc. v. Lowenstern) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arlen House East, Inc. v. Lowenstern, 364 So. 2d 87, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16977 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Arlen House East, Inc., defendant and counter-plaintiff below, from an adverse judgment rendered against it, following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ cause of action was for damages and a declaratory judgment arising out of an alleged breach of contract by the defendant.

Defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and interposed a counterclaim charging the plaintiffs with breach of contract and bad faith.

Appellant contends that the judgment should be reversed. The grounds urged for reversal are that the court erred (1) in denying defendant the right to assemble evidence for use at trial; (2) in improperly excluding substantial competent material evidence offered by it on issues for determination; (3) in permitting an attorney for the plaintiffs to testify, over defendant’s objections, that defendant had breached the contract; (4) in failing to rule on the question of liquidated damages, and (5) in giving erroneous instructions to the jury.

All of the grounds relied upon for reversal have been carefully considered in the light of the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel and, we have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The record discloses that the case was fully and fairly tried; that the verdict and judgment are supported by the evidence; and that the rulings of the trial court challenged by defendant did not, on the record and under the law, constitute harmful error. Warning Safety Lights, Inc. v. Gallor, 346 So.2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Therefore the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Quito v. Compania De Vapores Ocean Breeze S.A.
743 So. 2d 1178 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
364 So. 2d 87, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arlen-house-east-inc-v-lowenstern-fladistctapp-1978.