Michl v. General Electric Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michl v. General Electric Co.

526 So. 2d 1046, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1454, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2618, 1988 WL 61985

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 21, 1988·No. No. 87-755·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Sonya Michl raises several points on appeal. She maintains that the trial court erred in: failing to permit certain rebuttal testimony; refusing to permit introduction of correspondence between consumers and appellee General Electric Company; denying requested jury instructions; and limiting cross-examination of an expert witness. Finding no merit in these contentions, we affirm. See Giordano v. Ramirez, 503 So.2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Riveron v. Jervis B. Webb Co., 488 So.2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Gencorp, Inc. v. Wolfe, 481 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 491 So.2d 281 (Fla.1986); 3-M Corp.—McGhan Medical Reports Div. v. Brown, 475 So.2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Thomas v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 424 So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Coral Plaza Corp. v. Hersman, 220 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 229 So.2d 867 (Fla.1969); see also Robison v. Faine, 525 So.2d 903, 905 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Cf. State, Dept. of Transportation [1047] v. Alvarez, 490 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 500 So.2d 543 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Sonya Michl raises several points on appeal. She maintains that the trial court erred in: failing to permit certain rebuttal testimony; refusing to permit introduction of correspondence between consumers and appellee General Electric Company; denying requested jury instructions; and limiting cross-examination of an expert witness. Finding no merit in these contentions, we affirm. See Giordano v. Ramirez, 503 So.2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Riveron v. Jervis B. Webb Co., 488 So.2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Gencorp, Inc. v. Wolfe, 481 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 491 So.2d 281 (Fla.1986); 3-M Corp.—McGhan Medical Reports Div. v. Brown, 475 So.2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Thomas v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 424 So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Coral Plaza Corp. v. Hersman, 220 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 229 So.2d 867 (Fla.1969); see also Robison v. Faine, 525 So.2d 903, 905 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Cf. State, Dept. of Transportation [1047] v. Alvarez, 490 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 500 So.2d 543 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

Michl v. General Electric Co., 526 So. 2d 1046, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1454, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2618, 1988 WL 61985 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

526 So. 2d 1046 (Michl v. General Electric Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related