Pimentel v. Iznaga
This text of 431 So. 2d 667 (Pimentel v. Iznaga) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
431 So. 2d 667, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 27718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pimentel-v-iznaga-fladistctapp-1983.