Padilla v. Buell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Padilla v. Buell

797 So. 2d 609, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13431, 2001 WL 1130854

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 26, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-3226

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 797 So. 2d 609 (Padilla v. Buell) 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

Padilla v. Buell, 797 So. 2d 609, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13431, 2001 WL 1130854 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment following a defense verdict in a property negligence action. The plaintiff abandoned his motion for new trial without having it heard, and thus seeks to overturn the jury’s verdict.

We find that the failure of plaintiffs counsel to object with specificity to defense counsel’s remarks during closing argument waived any error that might have occurred. See Sawczak v. Goldenberg, 710 So.2d 996, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Moreover, the implied reference to insurance matters in this case was not fundamental error requiring reversal. See Melara v. Cicione, 712 So.2d 429, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

We also find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. Therefore, we affirm.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment following a defense verdict in a property negligence action. The plaintiff abandoned his motion for new trial without having it heard, and thus seeks to overturn the jury’s verdict.

We find that the failure of plaintiffs counsel to object with specificity to defense counsel’s remarks during closing argument waived any error that might have occurred. See Sawczak v. Goldenberg, 710 So.2d 996, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Moreover, the implied reference to insurance matters in this case was not fundamental error requiring reversal. See Melara v. Cicione, 712 So.2d 429, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

We also find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. Therefore, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

797 So. 2d 609, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13431, 2001 WL 1130854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padilla-v-buell-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack