Joseph Land & Co. v. Gonzalez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Joseph Land & Co. v. Gonzalez

674 So. 2d 934, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6312, 1996 WL 313038

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 12, 1996·No. Nos. 95-1635, 95-2346·Published

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

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.

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

Pincite

674 So. 2d 934 (Joseph Land & Co. v. Gonzalez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related