Miami-Dade County v. Barilari

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miami-Dade County v. Barilari

786 So. 2d 672, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8056, 2001 WL 649459

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-2337

StatusPublished

This text of 786 So. 2d 672 (Miami-Dade County v. Barilari) 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

Miami-Dade County v. Barilari, 786 So. 2d 672, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8056, 2001 WL 649459 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Vann v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 627 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (stating that “none of the comments made by defense counsel were so prejudicial or inflammatory as to require mistrial, or a new trial, especially where the witness never answered the question and no evidence on the issue was ever [673]*673presented to the jury”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 731 So.2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“find[ing] that the trial court properly sustained the objections when necessary and properly gave curative instructions when necessary that obviated the harm,” and thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Vann v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 627 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (stating that “none of the comments made by defense counsel were so prejudicial or inflammatory as to require mistrial, or a new trial, especially where the witness never answered the question and no evidence on the issue was ever [673]*673presented to the jury”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 731 So.2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“find[ing] that the trial court properly sustained the objections when necessary and properly gave curative instructions when necessary that obviated the harm,” and thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

786 So. 2d 672, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8056, 2001 WL 649459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miami-dade-county-v-barilari-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack