Joseph Land & Co. v. Gonzalez

674 So. 2d 934, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6312, 1996 WL 313038
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 12, 1996
DocketNos. 95-1635, 95-2346
StatusPublished

This text of 674 So. 2d 934 (Joseph Land & Co. v. Gonzalez) 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
Joseph Land & Co. v. Gonzalez, 674 So. 2d 934, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6312, 1996 WL 313038 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, Joseph Land & Company, Inc., Charles Earl Mitchell, and Transport Insurance Company, appeal from an adverse final judgment, from the denial of their motion for a new trial or a remittitur, and from an adverse final cost judgment. We affirm finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial or a remittitur where the jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Lassiter v. International Union Of Operating Eng’rs, 349 So.2d 622, 627 (Fla.1976); Taylor v. Ganas, 443 So.2d 251, 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

The defendants’ remaining points lack merit.

Accordingly, we affirm.

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

Related

Lassitter v. Intern. Union of Op. Engin.
349 So. 2d 622 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1977)
Taylor v. Ganas
443 So. 2d 251 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
674 So. 2d 934, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6312, 1996 WL 313038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-land-co-v-gonzalez-fladistctapp-1996.