Easton v. Weir

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Easton v. Weir

188 So. 2d 1, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5035

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 1966

DocketNo. 4357

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 188 So. 2d 1 (Easton v. Weir) 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

Easton v. Weir, 188 So. 2d 1, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5035 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant appeals from final judgment, rendered by the Court sitting without a jury, awarding the plaintiff $16,-000 damages for injury to his furniture inventory stored in defendant-appellees’ warehouse and for loss of business and profit attendant thereto. The two points on appeal concern only the issue of damages. Plaintiff contends that the trial court’s inadequate award of damages requires a new trial on the issue of damages and that the trial court erroneously cast the burden of proof upon the plaintiff as to the issue of mitigation of damages.

We have carefully examined the voluminous testimony, depositions, exhibits and the law presented by those briefs filed herein and, while there appears to be some conflicts in testimony, we conclude these were properly resolved by the trial court.

[2]*2The final judgment has .come to this court with a presumption of correctness and the appellant has the burden of showing that it is clearly erroneous. See: Frell v. Frell, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 706; Dings v. Dings, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 227; and Gaer v. Gaer, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 789. Reversible error has not been shown. There is substantial, competent evidence to support the trial judge’s ruling. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 351; Lamb v. Dade County, Fla.App.1964,. 159 So.2d 477.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON and HOBSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant appeals from final judgment, rendered by the Court sitting without a jury, awarding the plaintiff $16,-000 damages for injury to his furniture inventory stored in defendant-appellees’ warehouse and for loss of business and profit attendant thereto. The two points on appeal concern only the issue of damages. Plaintiff contends that the trial court’s inadequate award of damages requires a new trial on the issue of damages and that the trial court erroneously cast the burden of proof upon the plaintiff as to the issue of mitigation of damages.

We have carefully examined the voluminous testimony, depositions, exhibits and the law presented by those briefs filed herein and, while there appears to be some conflicts in testimony, we conclude these were properly resolved by the trial court.

[2]*2The final judgment has .come to this court with a presumption of correctness and the appellant has the burden of showing that it is clearly erroneous. See: Frell v. Frell, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 706; Dings v. Dings, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 227; and Gaer v. Gaer, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 789. Reversible error has not been shown. There is substantial, competent evidence to support the trial judge’s ruling. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 351; Lamb v. Dade County, Fla.App.1964,. 159 So.2d 477.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON and HOBSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 So. 2d 1, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/easton-v-weir-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack