Brancaccio v. Jackal Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brancaccio v. Jackal Corp.

641 So. 2d 114, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4141, 1994 WL 162768

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 3, 1994

DocketNo. 93-820

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 641 So. 2d 114 (Brancaccio v. Jackal Corp.) 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

Brancaccio v. Jackal Corp., 641 So. 2d 114, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4141, 1994 WL 162768 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The appellants have failed to provide a' transcript of the proceedings below or a proper substitute and, therefore, the trial court’s ruling must be presumed correct. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1980); In re Guardianship of Read, 555 So.2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Ahmed v. Travelers Indem. Co., 516 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Unlike the court in Gold, Vann & White, P.A. v. DeBerry, 1994 WL 150171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), we are unable to adequately review the entire trial court record to determine whether the contents of the notes and drawings were important enough to the issues of the case to require a new trial. See Gills v. Angelis, 312 So.2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 17 (Fla.1976); Schoeppl v. Okolowitz, 133 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ request for a new trial is affirmed.

GODERICH, J., concurs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants have failed to provide a' transcript of the proceedings below or a proper substitute and, therefore, the trial court’s ruling must be presumed correct. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1980); In re Guardianship of Read, 555 So.2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Ahmed v. Travelers Indem. Co., 516 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Unlike the court in Gold, Vann & White, P.A. v. DeBerry, 1994 WL 150171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), we are unable to adequately review the entire trial court record to determine whether the contents of the notes and drawings were important enough to the issues of the case to require a new trial. See Gills v. Angelis, 312 So.2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 17 (Fla.1976); Schoeppl v. Okolowitz, 133 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ request for a new trial is affirmed.

GODERICH, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 So. 2d 114, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4141, 1994 WL 162768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brancaccio-v-jackal-corp-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack