Bolufe v. Ramirez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bolufe v. Ramirez

626 So. 2d 286, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11120, 1993 WL 442476

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 2, 1993·No. No. 92-639·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the trial court properly granted a new trial because of the golden rule arguments made by defense counsel below. Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Miku v. Olmen, 193 So.2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 232 (Fla.1967).

There is no merit in the point raised on cross appeal. See § 627.7262, Fla.Stat. (1991) (renumbered § 627.4136, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1992)),

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the trial court properly granted a new trial because of the golden rule arguments made by defense counsel below. Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Miku v. Olmen, 193 So.2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 232 (Fla.1967).

There is no merit in the point raised on cross appeal. See § 627.7262, Fla.Stat. (1991) (renumbered § 627.4136, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1992)),

Affirmed.

Bolufe v. Ramirez, 626 So. 2d 286, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11120, 1993 WL 442476 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

626 So. 2d 286 (Bolufe v. Ramirez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related