Pimentel v. Iznaga

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pimentel v. Iznaga

431 So. 2d 667, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 27718

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 3, 1983·No. No. 81-2755·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

Because we find that the record discloses the existence of issues of fact and reasonable evidence upon which the jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the non-moving party, Tiny’s Liquors, Inc. v. Davis, 353 So.2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), we reverse the final judgment entered by the trial court. We reinstate the verdict as to the issues previously decided by the jury and remand for a new trial on the question of alleged fraud or collusion left undecided by the jury. Haendel v. Paterno, 388 So.2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

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

BASKIN, Judge.

Because we find that the record discloses the existence of issues of fact and reasonable evidence upon which the jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the non-moving party, Tiny’s Liquors, Inc. v. Davis, 353 So.2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), we reverse the final judgment entered by the trial court. We reinstate the verdict as to the issues previously decided by the jury and remand for a new trial on the question of alleged fraud or collusion left undecided by the jury. Haendel v. Paterno, 388 So.2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Pimentel v. Iznaga, 431 So. 2d 667, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 27718 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

431 So. 2d 667 (Pimentel v. Iznaga) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related