Conklin Shows, Inc. v. Llanes

733 So. 2d 595, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7571, 1999 WL 371307
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 9, 1999
Docket98-2680
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 733 So. 2d 595 (Conklin Shows, Inc. v. Llanes) 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
Conklin Shows, Inc. v. Llanes, 733 So. 2d 595, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7571, 1999 WL 371307 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

733 So.2d 595 (1999)

CONKLIN SHOWS, INC., etc., Appellant,
v.
Gloria LLANES, et al., Appellees.

No. 98-2680.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 9, 1999.
Rehearing Denied July 7, 1999.

*596 McGrane & Nosich and Rhea P. Grossman, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Eddy O. Marban, for appellees.

Before NESBITT, JORGENSON, and LEVY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Conklin Shows, Inc., the defendant below, appeals from an order granting a new trial. For the following reasons, we reverse.

The trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial. "Trial courts lack discretion to grant a motion for a new trial... for unpreserved error that is not fundamental error." Celentano v. Banker, 728 So.2d 244, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). In this case, the alleged error was neither preserved nor fundamental. Furthermore, there was no showing that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the remarks made by defense counsel, particularly in light of the court's instruction to the jury, to which counsel for each party agreed. See Snider v. Cardigos, 723 So.2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that where appellee failed to demonstrate that alleged error affected outcome of case, trial court abused its discretion in ordering new trial); Katos v. Cushing, 601 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict for the defendant.[1]

NOTES

[1] In light of our disposition of the appeal, the cross appeal is moot.

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

Related

Lee v. Oceans Casino Cruises, Inc.
983 So. 2d 791 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
733 So. 2d 595, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7571, 1999 WL 371307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conklin-shows-inc-v-llanes-fladistctapp-1999.