Earl Hollis, Inc. v. Fraser Mortgage Co.
403 So. 2d 1038, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20914
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 26, 1981·No. No. 80-1639·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinions
While the final argument of defendant’s counsel was egregiously improper, we find that the plaintiff specifically waived the right to a mistrial on that ground below and therefore may not insist upon the issue on appeal. Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 292 (1978); see State v, Cumbie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla.1980). The other points raised present no error.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Earl Hollis, Inc. v. Fraser Mortgage Co., 403 So. 2d 1038, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20914 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).
403 So. 2d 1038 (Earl Hollis, Inc. v. Fraser Mortgage Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ed Ricke & Sons v. Green by and Through Swan
468 So. 2d 908 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
IDY Corp. v. Engels
445 So. 2d 1076 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Green v. Ed Ricke and Sons, Inc.
438 So. 2d 25 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Nable v. Estate of Godfrey
403 So. 2d 1038 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)