Hart Properties, Inc. v. Garfield

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hart Properties, Inc. v. Garfield

370 So. 2d 39, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14885

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 1979

DocketNo. 78-1393

StatusPublished

This text of 370 So. 2d 39 (Hart Properties, Inc. v. Garfield) 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

Hart Properties, Inc. v. Garfield, 370 So. 2d 39, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14885 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant-employer appeals from a judgment entered against it on a jury verdict for the plaintiff in an action for breach of an employment contract. Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, we find no error either in the trial court’s rulings in excluding proffered evidence, Perper v. Edell, 44 So.2d 78 (Fla.1949); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ganey, 125 So.2d 576, 578-579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); in the jury instructions, see Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Shouse, 83 Fla. 156, 91 So. 90, 99 (1922); DeBold v. Ocean Reef Club, Inc., 368 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (Case no. 78-1073, opinion filed March 6,1979); or in the denial of the defendant’s motion for new trial on the asserted ground that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So.2d 1187 (Fla.1977); see McCutcheon v. National Acceptance Corp., 143 Fla. 663, 197 So. 475 (1940). Consequently, the judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant-employer appeals from a judgment entered against it on a jury verdict for the plaintiff in an action for breach of an employment contract. Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, we find no error either in the trial court’s rulings in excluding proffered evidence, Perper v. Edell, 44 So.2d 78 (Fla.1949); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ganey, 125 So.2d 576, 578-579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); in the jury instructions, see Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Shouse, 83 Fla. 156, 91 So. 90, 99 (1922); DeBold v. Ocean Reef Club, Inc., 368 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (Case no. 78-1073, opinion filed March 6,1979); or in the denial of the defendant’s motion for new trial on the asserted ground that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So.2d 1187 (Fla.1977); see McCutcheon v. National Acceptance Corp., 143 Fla. 663, 197 So. 475 (1940). Consequently, the judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 So. 2d 39, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-properties-inc-v-garfield-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack