Snapper Power Equipment, Inc. v. Dozer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Snapper Power Equipment, Inc. v. Dozer

605 So. 2d 1012, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10783, 1992 WL 279988

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 605 So. 2d 1012 (Snapper Power Equipment, Inc. v. Dozer) 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

Snapper Power Equipment, Inc. v. Dozer, 605 So. 2d 1012, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10783, 1992 WL 279988 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, the defendants in this personal injury case, received a jury verdict in their favor. We find that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial based on the alleged misconduct of defense counsel. The record fails to support the trial court’s reasons for its finding that defense counsel’s overall presentation was calculated to prejudice the jury against the plaintiffs. Therefore, the trial court’s finding of cumulative error is likewise unsupported by the record. See Cummins Alabama, Inc. v. Allbritten, 548 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 553 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1989). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting a new trial and remand to the trial court with direction to reinstate the final judgment initially entered in favor of appellants.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and HERSEY, J., concur. LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, the defendants in this personal injury case, received a jury verdict in their favor. We find that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial based on the alleged misconduct of defense counsel. The record fails to support the trial court’s reasons for its finding that defense counsel’s overall presentation was calculated to prejudice the jury against the plaintiffs. Therefore, the trial court’s finding of cumulative error is likewise unsupported by the record. See Cummins Alabama, Inc. v. Allbritten, 548 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 553 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1989). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting a new trial and remand to the trial court with direction to reinstate the final judgment initially entered in favor of appellants.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and HERSEY, J., concur. LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 So. 2d 1012, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10783, 1992 WL 279988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snapper-power-equipment-inc-v-dozer-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack