Omer Corp. v. Duke

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Omer Corp. v. Duke

211 So. 2d 48, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5415

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 1968

DocketNo. 67-718

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 211 So. 2d 48 (Omer Corp. v. Duke) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 So. 2d 48, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omer-corp-v-duke-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack