Casabona v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Casabona v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc.

802 So. 2d 1151, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16019, 2001 WL 1410277

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 14, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-1307

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 802 So. 2d 1151 (Casabona v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, 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

Casabona v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., 802 So. 2d 1151, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16019, 2001 WL 1410277 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

While we have serious doubts about the trial judge’s apparently unwavering “policy” to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages in every case, see Glosson v. Solomon, 490 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(error to refuse to exercise judicial discretion); Fazio v. Russell Bldg. Movers, Inc., 469 So.2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(same); see generally Maris Distributing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(bifurcation exception rather than rule), and cases cited; Bowen v. Manuel, 144 So.2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)(same); Claughton v. Claughton, 393 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1980)(same, dissolution), the judgment for the defendant under review is nevertheless affirmed because the error, if any, in this regard had no practical effect other than the exclusion of evidence relating only to the appellant’s co-plaintiffs. That ruling, in turn, was both unobjected to below, see Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and entirely harmless. See Salzverg v. Salzverg, 696 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Dessanti v. Contreras, 695 So.2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), review denied, 703 So.2d 475 (Fla.1997); 3 Fla. Jur.2d Appellate Review §§ 299,383 (1997).

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

While we have serious doubts about the trial judge’s apparently unwavering “policy” to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages in every case, see Glosson v. Solomon, 490 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(error to refuse to exercise judicial discretion); Fazio v. Russell Bldg. Movers, Inc., 469 So.2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(same); see generally Maris Distributing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(bifurcation exception rather than rule), and cases cited; Bowen v. Manuel, 144 So.2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)(same); Claughton v. Claughton, 393 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1980)(same, dissolution), the judgment for the defendant under review is nevertheless affirmed because the error, if any, in this regard had no practical effect other than the exclusion of evidence relating only to the appellant’s co-plaintiffs. That ruling, in turn, was both unobjected to below, see Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and entirely harmless. See Salzverg v. Salzverg, 696 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Dessanti v. Contreras, 695 So.2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), review denied, 703 So.2d 475 (Fla.1997); 3 Fla. Jur.2d Appellate Review §§ 299,383 (1997).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

802 So. 2d 1151, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16019, 2001 WL 1410277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casabona-v-sci-funeral-services-of-florida-inc-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack