Conklin Amusements, Inc. v. Ross ex rel. Ross
This text of 456 So. 2d 972 (Conklin Amusements, Inc. v. Ross ex rel. Ross) 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.
Opinion
Concluding that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the trial court’s grant of a new trial and that, therefore, the appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion, we affirm the order under review. See Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1980); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Staib v. Ferrari, Inc., 391 So.2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). On the appellee’s cross-appeal, we affirm the order denying her motion for a directed verdict as to liability.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
456 So. 2d 972, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2180, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conklin-amusements-inc-v-ross-ex-rel-ross-fladistctapp-1984.