Hollar v. Saunders

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hollar v. Saunders

498 So. 2d 575, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2542, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10903

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 2, 1986

DocketNo. 85-2443

StatusPublished

This text of 498 So. 2d 575 (Hollar v. Saunders) 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

Hollar v. Saunders, 498 So. 2d 575, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2542, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10903 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Finding no merit in appellants’ contentions that the trial court erred when it: 1) admitted offensive photographs of appel-lee’s lacerated arm into evidence, see Adams v. State, 412 So.2d 850 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882, 103 S.Ct. 182, 74 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982); 2) denied appellants’ motion for new trial based on appellee’s inflammatory closing arguments, Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson, 433 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. v. Green, 468 So.2d 908 (Fla.1985); 3) proceeded to trial before the case was at issue, Allstate Insurance Co. v. Gillespie, 455 So.2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); 4) refused to dismiss an excess insurance carrier as a party; see Randel v. General Insurance Co., 439 So.2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); and 5) failed to give a jury instruction regarding sudden and unexpected me[576]*576chanical failure, see Llompart v. Lavecchia, 374 So.2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So.2d 758 (Fla.1980); Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 4.8, we affirm.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Finding no merit in appellants’ contentions that the trial court erred when it: 1) admitted offensive photographs of appel-lee’s lacerated arm into evidence, see Adams v. State, 412 So.2d 850 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882, 103 S.Ct. 182, 74 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982); 2) denied appellants’ motion for new trial based on appellee’s inflammatory closing arguments, Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson, 433 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. v. Green, 468 So.2d 908 (Fla.1985); 3) proceeded to trial before the case was at issue, Allstate Insurance Co. v. Gillespie, 455 So.2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); 4) refused to dismiss an excess insurance carrier as a party; see Randel v. General Insurance Co., 439 So.2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); and 5) failed to give a jury instruction regarding sudden and unexpected me[576]*576chanical failure, see Llompart v. Lavecchia, 374 So.2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So.2d 758 (Fla.1980); Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 4.8, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 So. 2d 575, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2542, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollar-v-saunders-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack