Fasano v. Diebold, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fasano v. Diebold, Inc.

401 So. 2d 896, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20618

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 22, 1981·No. No. 80-929·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only point raised in this appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict for the defendant in a personal injury action challenges the trial court’s refusal to permit the plaintiff to call a rebuttal witness. See Reeder v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 338 So.2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Driscoll v. Morris, 114 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). We do not address the merits of the contention because we are convinced that the error, if any, was harmless. Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979).

AFFIRMED.

LETTS, C. J., GLICKSTEIN, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only point raised in this appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict for the defendant in a personal injury action challenges the trial court’s refusal to permit the plaintiff to call a rebuttal witness. See Reeder v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 338 So.2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Driscoll v. Morris, 114 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). We do not address the merits of the contention because we are convinced that the error, if any, was harmless. Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979).

AFFIRMED.

LETTS, C. J., GLICKSTEIN, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.

Fasano v. Diebold, Inc., 401 So. 2d 896, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20618 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

401 So. 2d 896 (Fasano v. Diebold, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related