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

225 So. 2d 438, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5429
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 22, 1969·No. No. 68-948·Published

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

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

225 So. 2d 438 (Bowman v. Bill Lomax Paint & Body Shop, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth
201 So. 2d 80 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Bieley v. Jennings Construction Corp.
212 So. 2d 809 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)