Benka v. Outerbridge

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Benka v. Outerbridge

539 So. 2d 620, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 767, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1506, 1989 WL 25435

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 22, 1989·No. No. 88-344·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant failed to object or acquiesced in the trial court to the various aspects raised on appeal regarding jury instructions and evidence. Thus, those aspects were not preserved for appeal. See Rindfleisch v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 498 So.2d 488, 491-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Middelveen v. Sibson Realty, Inc., 417 So.2d 275, 276-77 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

LEHAN, A.C.J., and HALL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant failed to object or acquiesced in the trial court to the various aspects raised on appeal regarding jury instructions and evidence. Thus, those aspects were not preserved for appeal. See Rindfleisch v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 498 So.2d 488, 491-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Middelveen v. Sibson Realty, Inc., 417 So.2d 275, 276-77 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

LEHAN, A.C.J., and HALL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Benka v. Outerbridge, 539 So. 2d 620, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 767, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1506, 1989 WL 25435 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

539 So. 2d 620 (Benka v. Outerbridge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related