Prince Michael Corp. v. Zucker

147 So. 2d 332
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 11, 1962·No. No. 62-261·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, defendants in the trial court, seek review of an adverse final judgment based upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action. They have also raised the question of the propriety of certain costs awarded the plaintiff in the trial court, by virtue of an amended order taxing costs. The appellee has conceded the questioned costs were erroneous, thus the only point preserved for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

The verdict in the instant case, as in all cases, comes before this court clothed with the presumption of correctness, and we must review the evidence, taking all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, in a light most favorable to the ap-pellee. Martin v. Tindell, Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 473; Food Fair Stores of Florida v. Vallarelli, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 161. Therefore, as an examination of the record on appeal in its entirety reveals evidence which would support the jury’s verdict [although we might have decided the cause differently had we been the trier of the facts], the verdict and judgment thereon is sustained.

The final judgment rendered below is affirmed, with directions to eliminate from the amended order the sum of $133.21, taxing costs for the plane fare to New York.

Affirmed with directions.

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

Prince Michael Corp. v. Zucker, 147 So. 2d 332 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

147 So. 2d 332 (Prince Michael Corp. v. Zucker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lee v. Dade County
342 So. 2d 846 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Williams v. Seaboard Airline Railroad
268 So. 2d 459 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Jefferson Stores, Inc. v. Caudell
228 So. 2d 99 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Booker v. Lima
182 So. 2d 642 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Direct Transport Company of Florida v. Rakaskas
167 So. 2d 623 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. FED. DETECTIVE AGENCY
157 So. 2d 148 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)