Howerton v. Hammock

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Howerton v. Hammock

204 So. 2d 28

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 19, 1967

DocketNo. J-115

StatusPublished

This text of 204 So. 2d 28 (Howerton v. Hammock) 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

Howerton v. Hammock, 204 So. 2d 28 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in an action for compensatory and .punitive damages arising out of an intentional tort which was found by the jury to have been maliciously committed by the appellant against the plaintiff.

The grounds for reversal urged by appellants are essentially directed to the sufficiency of the evidence as to both the commission of the tort and the amount of the damages arising therefrom. We have examined the transcript of testimony given before the jury and find that there was sufficient evidence which if believed, as it apparently was, is supportive of the jury’s verdict. It is apodictic that an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury when it comes to the function of reconciling conflicting testimony.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in an action for compensatory and .punitive damages arising out of an intentional tort which was found by the jury to have been maliciously committed by the appellant against the plaintiff.

The grounds for reversal urged by appellants are essentially directed to the sufficiency of the evidence as to both the commission of the tort and the amount of the damages arising therefrom. We have examined the transcript of testimony given before the jury and find that there was sufficient evidence which if believed, as it apparently was, is supportive of the jury’s verdict. It is apodictic that an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury when it comes to the function of reconciling conflicting testimony.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 So. 2d 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howerton-v-hammock-fladistctapp-1967.