Kaufman v. Rubin
This text of 183 So. 2d 284 (Kaufman v. Rubin) 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.
Opinion
The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the trial court and suffered an adverse jury verdict in an action for a fall in ap-pellee’s hotel, presents two points. Each point alleges a procedural error.
We do not determine whether the points present error because it is conclusively apparent from the record that no prejudicial error has been shown. The cause was fully tried, and the appellant was able to present to the jury each contention that she puts forward in the case. Therefore, this judgment is affirmed pursuant to the rule that an appellate court will not reverse a judgment based on substantial evi[285]*285dence where the record does not reveal that the errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Symmes v. Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co., 69 Fla. 4, 67 So. 228 (1915); Victor Hotel Owners v. Sperling, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 120.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
183 So. 2d 284, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-rubin-fladistctapp-1966.