Omer Corp. v. Duke

211 So. 2d 48, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5415
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 28, 1968·No. No. 67-718·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, which was the defendant in the trial court, appeals a final judgment and assigns as error the trial court’s denial of its motion for a new trial. It affirmatively appears from the record that a procedural irregularity, which was the basis of the motion for a new trial, occurred during the final argument of appellant’s counsel before the jury retired. Appellant’s counsel learned of it before the jury returned to deliver its verdict, but he did not complain until the adverse verdict had been announced. Under these circumstances we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, for a new trial. See Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company, Fla.1961, 130 So.2d 580, 587, 588.

Affirmed.

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

Omer Corp. v. Duke, 211 So. 2d 48, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5415 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

211 So. 2d 48 (Omer Corp. v. Duke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson
433 So. 2d 1319 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Bishop v. Watson
367 So. 2d 1073 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Rose's Stores, Inc. v. Mason
338 So. 2d 1323 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)