Bowman v. Bill Lomax Paint & Body Shop, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bowman v. Bill Lomax Paint & Body Shop, Inc.

225 So. 2d 438, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5429

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 22, 1969

DocketNo. 68-948

StatusPublished

This text of 225 So. 2d 438 (Bowman v. Bill Lomax Paint & Body Shop, Inc.) 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

Bowman v. Bill Lomax Paint & Body Shop, Inc., 225 So. 2d 438, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5429 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below appeals from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict in an action for damages for breach of contract. The basis of the appeal is that the trial court should have granted a new trial because of improper argument to the jury by defendant-appellee’s attorney.

An examination of the record reveals that the comments complained of occurred in the attorney’s opening statement to the jury. We hold that the trial court correctly ruled that the comments were not of such a nature as to require a new trial. Therefore the judgment is affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 80; Bieley v. Jennings Construction Corporation, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 809.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below appeals from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict in an action for damages for breach of contract. The basis of the appeal is that the trial court should have granted a new trial because of improper argument to the jury by defendant-appellee’s attorney.

An examination of the record reveals that the comments complained of occurred in the attorney’s opening statement to the jury. We hold that the trial court correctly ruled that the comments were not of such a nature as to require a new trial. Therefore the judgment is affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 80; Bieley v. Jennings Construction Corporation, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 809.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 So. 2d 438, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-bill-lomax-paint-body-shop-inc-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack