Safelite Glass Corp. v. Samuel

736 So. 2d 1283, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10087, 1999 WL 543238
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 28, 1999
DocketNo. 98-3130
StatusPublished

This text of 736 So. 2d 1283 (Safelite Glass Corp. v. Samuel) 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
Safelite Glass Corp. v. Samuel, 736 So. 2d 1283, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10087, 1999 WL 543238 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment. Appellants seek a new trial on the ground that the trial court erred in giving a jury instruction based on Via v. Tillinghast, 153 So.2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). We conclude that the issue has not been preserved for review because the argument asserted here was not presented to the trial court. We further note, in any event, that the instruction based on Via should not have been given for the reasons articulated in Gordon’s Tractor Service, Inc. v. Bilello, 336 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

STONE, POLEN, and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Via v. Tillinghast
153 So. 2d 59 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Gordon's Tractor Service, Inc. v. Bilello
336 So. 2d 1208 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
736 So. 2d 1283, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10087, 1999 WL 543238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safelite-glass-corp-v-samuel-fladistctapp-1999.