Sawczak v. Goldenberg

Supreme Court of Florida

Sawczak v. Goldenberg

775 So. 2d 290, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 13, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 4, 2001 WL 8321

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJanuary 4, 2001

DocketNo. SC93353

StatusPublished

This text of 775 So. 2d 290 (Sawczak v. Goldenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sawczak v. Goldenberg, 775 So. 2d 290, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 13, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 4, 2001 WL 8321 (Fla. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

LEWIS, J.

We have for review Sawczak v. Goldenberg, 710 So.2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), which has been presented to the Court on the basis of express and direct conflict with multiple cases which have addressed and decided the issue of whether unobject-ed to, improper comments made during closing argument rise to a level of seriousness as to warrant the granting of a new trial to the complaining party. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 8(b)(3), Fla. Const. We have recently addressed the primary issue presented for conflict in the instant case in Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla.2000), and articulated the applicable law. Therefore, we remand the cause to the district court for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Murphy. We decline to address other collateral issues.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

LEWIS, J.

We have for review Sawczak v. Goldenberg, 710 So.2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), which has been presented to the Court on the basis of express and direct conflict with multiple cases which have addressed and decided the issue of whether unobject-ed to, improper comments made during closing argument rise to a level of seriousness as to warrant the granting of a new trial to the complaining party. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 8(b)(3), Fla. Const. We have recently addressed the primary issue presented for conflict in the instant case in Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla.2000), and articulated the applicable law. Therefore, we remand the cause to the district court for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Murphy. We decline to address other collateral issues.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

775 So. 2d 290, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 13, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 4, 2001 WL 8321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sawczak-v-goldenberg-fla-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack