Bonded Transportation, Inc. v. Lee

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bonded Transportation, Inc. v. Lee

308 So. 2d 119, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14479

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 1975

DocketNo. U-143

StatusPublished

This text of 308 So. 2d 119 (Bonded Transportation, Inc. v. Lee) 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

Bonded Transportation, Inc. v. Lee, 308 So. 2d 119, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14479 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case was consolidated for trial and appeal with Lee et ux. v. Bonded Transportation, Inc., Case No. U-124, Opinion dated February 20, 1975, not yet reported, wherein this Court reversed on authority of Fitzsimmons v. City of Pensacola, 297 So.2d 107 (Fla.App. 1st., 1974).

Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in favor of appel-lee. The principal question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

In our review of the record we have given due consideration to the applicable appellate principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Our review of the record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict and judgment thereon. It is not the province of this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed error or that the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed. See Cockerham v. R. E. Vaughan, Inc., 82 So.2d 890 (Fla. 1955).

BOYER, Acting C. J., and McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case was consolidated for trial and appeal with Lee et ux. v. Bonded Transportation, Inc., Case No. U-124, Opinion dated February 20, 1975, not yet reported, wherein this Court reversed on authority of Fitzsimmons v. City of Pensacola, 297 So.2d 107 (Fla.App. 1st., 1974).

Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in favor of appel-lee. The principal question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

In our review of the record we have given due consideration to the applicable appellate principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Our review of the record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict and judgment thereon. It is not the province of this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed error or that the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed. See Cockerham v. R. E. Vaughan, Inc., 82 So.2d 890 (Fla. 1955).

BOYER, Acting C. J., and McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 So. 2d 119, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonded-transportation-inc-v-lee-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack