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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 1989

DocketNo. 88-344

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 539 So. 2d 620 (Benka v. Outerbridge) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 So. 2d 620, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 767, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1506, 1989 WL 25435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benka-v-outerbridge-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack