Lamson v. City of Daytona Beach

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lamson v. City of Daytona Beach

314 So. 2d 800, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13627

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 1975

DocketNo. W-299

StatusPublished

This text of 314 So. 2d 800 (Lamson v. City of Daytona Beach) 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

Lamson v. City of Daytona Beach, 314 So. 2d 800, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13627 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs filed by able counsel. Although the evidence giving rise to the entry of the final judgment, based upon a jury verdict, here appealed was in conflict, those conflicts were resolved by the trier of the fact for whose collective judgment we may not substitute ours. We find no error of law as applied to those facts. Further, the excellent briefs of the parties reveal that each point here presented has been heretofore determined by decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court of Florida. Nothing would be added to the jurisprudence of this State by again discussing those points here.

Dispositive of the primary point here presented is our recent opinion in Thompson v. Jacobs, et al., Fla.App. 1st 1975, 314 So.2d 797, 1975.

[801]*801Appellant having failed to demonstrate prejudicial error, the final judgment appealed is

Affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and BOYER and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs filed by able counsel. Although the evidence giving rise to the entry of the final judgment, based upon a jury verdict, here appealed was in conflict, those conflicts were resolved by the trier of the fact for whose collective judgment we may not substitute ours. We find no error of law as applied to those facts. Further, the excellent briefs of the parties reveal that each point here presented has been heretofore determined by decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court of Florida. Nothing would be added to the jurisprudence of this State by again discussing those points here.

Dispositive of the primary point here presented is our recent opinion in Thompson v. Jacobs, et al., Fla.App. 1st 1975, 314 So.2d 797, 1975.

[801]*801Appellant having failed to demonstrate prejudicial error, the final judgment appealed is

Affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and BOYER and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 So. 2d 800, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamson-v-city-of-daytona-beach-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack