Metropolitan Dade County v. Marino

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Metropolitan Dade County v. Marino

526 So. 2d 1050, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1460, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2555, 1988 WL 62007

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 21, 1988·No. No. 87-2512·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Concluding that the trial court’s instruction to disregard the arguably inadmissible testimony sufficiently cured any prejudice that may have resulted from its admission, and that, therefore, a mistrial was not warranted, we affirm the judgment under review. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Guthrie, 321 So.2d 116 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Compania Dominicana de Aviacion v. Knapp, 251 So.2d 18 (Fla.3d DCA 1971).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Concluding that the trial court’s instruction to disregard the arguably inadmissible testimony sufficiently cured any prejudice that may have resulted from its admission, and that, therefore, a mistrial was not warranted, we affirm the judgment under review. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Guthrie, 321 So.2d 116 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Compania Dominicana de Aviacion v. Knapp, 251 So.2d 18 (Fla.3d DCA 1971).

Affirmed.

Metropolitan Dade County v. Marino, 526 So. 2d 1050, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1460, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2555, 1988 WL 62007 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

526 So. 2d 1050 (Metropolitan Dade County v. Marino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related