Budnick v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
101 So. 3d 938, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20891, 2012 WL 6027807
Opinion
We affirm the final judgment because we find that the appellant’s general objec[939]*939tion to bifurcation was not sufficient to preserve the perceived error that certain evidence should be allowed into evidence during Phase I of the proceedings. See Noel v. Broward Gen. Med. Ctr., 725 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Corona v. State, 64 So.3d 1232 (Fla.2011); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982); Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493 (Fla.1992).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Budnick v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 101 So. 3d 938, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20891, 2012 WL 6027807 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).
101 So. 3d 938 (Budnick v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Steinhorst v. State
412 So. 2d 332 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1982)
Rodriguez v. State
609 So. 2d 493 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Corona v. State
64 So. 3d 1232 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)
Noel ex rel. Noel v. Broward General Medical Center
725 So. 2d 438 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)