Cribb v. Ellison

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cribb v. Ellison

310 So. 2d 445, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14057

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 1, 1975

DocketNo. V-118

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 310 So. 2d 445 (Cribb v. Ellison) 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

Cribb v. Ellison, 310 So. 2d 445, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14057 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully examined the record' on appeal and the briefs filed by able counsel. Although the evidence giving rise to the entry of the final judgment based upon a jury verdict which is here appealed was in conflict, those conflicts were resolved by the trier of the fact for whose judgment we may not substitute ours. We find no error of law as applied to those facts. Further, the briefs of the parties reveal that each point here presented has been heretofore determined by decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court of Florida. (See Thompson v. Jacobs, et al., Fla.App. 1st 1975, 314 So.2d 797, 1975; Kerr v. Caraway, Sup.Ct.Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 571; Myers v. Korbly, Fla.App. 2nd 1958, 103 So.2d 215 and Central Hardware Co. v. Stampler, Fla.App. 3rd 1965, 180 So.2d 205) Nothing would be added to the jurisprudence of this State by again discussing those points here.

Appellant having failed to demonstrate prejudicial error, the judgment appealed is

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, Acting C. J., and BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully examined the record' on appeal and the briefs filed by able counsel. Although the evidence giving rise to the entry of the final judgment based upon a jury verdict which is here appealed was in conflict, those conflicts were resolved by the trier of the fact for whose judgment we may not substitute ours. We find no error of law as applied to those facts. Further, the briefs of the parties reveal that each point here presented has been heretofore determined by decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court of Florida. (See Thompson v. Jacobs, et al., Fla.App. 1st 1975, 314 So.2d 797, 1975; Kerr v. Caraway, Sup.Ct.Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 571; Myers v. Korbly, Fla.App. 2nd 1958, 103 So.2d 215 and Central Hardware Co. v. Stampler, Fla.App. 3rd 1965, 180 So.2d 205) Nothing would be added to the jurisprudence of this State by again discussing those points here.

Appellant having failed to demonstrate prejudicial error, the judgment appealed is

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, Acting C. J., and BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 So. 2d 445, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cribb-v-ellison-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack