Black v. Teel

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Black v. Teel

405 So. 2d 1068, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21697

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1981

DocketNo. 81-277

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 405 So. 2d 1068 (Black v. Teel) 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

Black v. Teel, 405 So. 2d 1068, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21697 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a personal injury suit. Because we find the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendant when there was evidence at [1069]*1069trial which could have supported a verdict against the defendant we must reverse the judgment and remand this case for a new trial. Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So.2d 836 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Laird v. Potter, 367 So.2d 642 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 347 (Fla.1979); Newsome v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., 350 So.2d 825 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). This decision applies to both reasons given by the trial judge in his order directing a verdict. We find no error in the judge’s order denying the motion in limine regarding the blood alcohol test results.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a personal injury suit. Because we find the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendant when there was evidence at [1069]*1069trial which could have supported a verdict against the defendant we must reverse the judgment and remand this case for a new trial. Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So.2d 836 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Laird v. Potter, 367 So.2d 642 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 347 (Fla.1979); Newsome v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., 350 So.2d 825 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). This decision applies to both reasons given by the trial judge in his order directing a verdict. We find no error in the judge’s order denying the motion in limine regarding the blood alcohol test results.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 So. 2d 1068, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-teel-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack