Conlin ex rel. Conlin v. Hodson ex rel. Hodson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Conlin ex rel. Conlin v. Hodson ex rel. Hodson

188 So. 2d 870, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5144

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 1966

DocketNo. 5372

StatusPublished

This text of 188 So. 2d 870 (Conlin ex rel. Conlin v. Hodson ex rel. Hodson) 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

Conlin ex rel. Conlin v. Hodson ex rel. Hodson, 188 So. 2d 870, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5144 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have decided that a lengthy opinion would add nothing to the jurisprudence of this State.

. After having listened attentively to arguments of counsel for the respective parties litigant, having studiously read their briefs, and having carefully examined the entire record before us, we have concluded that harmful and therefore reversible error has not been demonstrated.

The allegations of the complaint are sufficient to charge gross negligence on the part of Thomalyn E. Conlin and actionable, simple negligence upon the part of William E. Smith. There is in this record evidence which if believed by the jury (as it obviously was) is sufficient to justify the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered pursuant thereto. The learned Circuit Judge did not err in submitting this case to the jury.

[871]*871The oppugned judgment should be and it is hereby—

Affirmed.

ALLEN, C. J., HOBSON, J., and HOB-SON, T. FRANK, Sr., Associate Judge, concur.

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