Mirsky v. Burger

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mirsky v. Burger

161 So. 2d 896, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4598

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 24, 1964

DocketNo. 63-503

StatusPublished

This text of 161 So. 2d 896 (Mirsky v. Burger) 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

Mirsky v. Burger, 161 So. 2d 896, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4598 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only question preserved for review on this appeal is whether or not the trial judge erred in denying the motion for new trial, which motion was grounded principally upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

[897]*897 The trial judge’s orders are met in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Southern Pine Extracts Company v. Bailey, Fla. 1954, 75 So.2d 774; Ward v. Hopkins, Fla. 1955, 81 So.2d 493; Fuote v. Maule, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 563. It is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: Dowling v. Loftin, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 283; Green-Mar Builders, Inc. v. Pearlman, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So.2d 601. The record contains substantial, competent evidence to support the jury’s verdict and, therefore, the appellant having failed to demonstrate error, the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only question preserved for review on this appeal is whether or not the trial judge erred in denying the motion for new trial, which motion was grounded principally upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

[897]*897 The trial judge’s orders are met in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Southern Pine Extracts Company v. Bailey, Fla. 1954, 75 So.2d 774; Ward v. Hopkins, Fla. 1955, 81 So.2d 493; Fuote v. Maule, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 563. It is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: Dowling v. Loftin, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 283; Green-Mar Builders, Inc. v. Pearlman, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So.2d 601. The record contains substantial, competent evidence to support the jury’s verdict and, therefore, the appellant having failed to demonstrate error, the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 So. 2d 896, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mirsky-v-burger-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack