Kaplan v. Sturm

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kaplan v. Sturm

234 So. 2d 390, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6516

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 1970

DocketNo. 2607

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 So. 2d 390 (Kaplan v. Sturm) 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

Kaplan v. Sturm, 234 So. 2d 390, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6516 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff charges that defense counsel in a negligence action made improper remarks during his closing argument and that the damages awarded plaintiff by the jury were legally inadequate. The only jury issue was that of damages and the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. We have examined the record and considered the briefs and arguments of counsel and conclude that no harmful or reversible error has been demonstrated.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and McCAIN, JJ., concur. REED, J., dissents, without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff charges that defense counsel in a negligence action made improper remarks during his closing argument and that the damages awarded plaintiff by the jury were legally inadequate. The only jury issue was that of damages and the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. We have examined the record and considered the briefs and arguments of counsel and conclude that no harmful or reversible error has been demonstrated.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and McCAIN, JJ., concur. REED, J., dissents, without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 So. 2d 390, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-sturm-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack