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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 21, 1988

DocketNo. 87-755

StatusPublished

This text of 526 So. 2d 1046 (Michl v. General Electric Co.) 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

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

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]*1047v. 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]*1047v. Alvarez, 490 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 500 So.2d 543 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 So. 2d 1046, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1454, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2618, 1988 WL 61985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michl-v-general-electric-co-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack