Goodman v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goodman v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc.

499 So. 2d 939, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 182, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6241

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 1987

DocketNo. 85-2042

StatusPublished

This text of 499 So. 2d 939 (Goodman v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc.) 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

Goodman v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 499 So. 2d 939, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 182, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6241 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues that 1) the successor judge, who was not present at trial and who was therefore unable to observe the alleged prejudicial conduct of appellee’s attorney, erred in denying appellant’s post-trial motions; 2) the trial court erred in allowing appellee to pose a hypothetical question based on facts allegedly not in evidence; and 3) the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finding no merit in these claims, Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. v. Green, 468 So.2d 908 (Fla.1985); Martin v. Sussman, 82 So.2d 597 (Fla.1955); Linehan v. Everett, 338 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Better Const., Inc. v. Camacho Enterprises, Inc., 311 So.2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 325 So.2d 8 (Fla.1975); Dixie-Bell Oil Co. v. Gold, 275 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); see Griffis v. Hill, 230 So.2d 143 (Fla.1969); Steiger v. Massachusetts Casualty Ins. Co., 273 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), we affirm.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues that 1) the successor judge, who was not present at trial and who was therefore unable to observe the alleged prejudicial conduct of appellee’s attorney, erred in denying appellant’s post-trial motions; 2) the trial court erred in allowing appellee to pose a hypothetical question based on facts allegedly not in evidence; and 3) the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finding no merit in these claims, Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. v. Green, 468 So.2d 908 (Fla.1985); Martin v. Sussman, 82 So.2d 597 (Fla.1955); Linehan v. Everett, 338 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Better Const., Inc. v. Camacho Enterprises, Inc., 311 So.2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 325 So.2d 8 (Fla.1975); Dixie-Bell Oil Co. v. Gold, 275 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); see Griffis v. Hill, 230 So.2d 143 (Fla.1969); Steiger v. Massachusetts Casualty Ins. Co., 273 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), we affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 So. 2d 939, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 182, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-drexel-burnham-lambert-inc-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack