Solomon v. New Era Meat 2

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Solomon v. New Era Meat 2

961 So. 2d 989, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9965, 2007 WL 1827231

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 2007

DocketNo. 3D06-2513

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 961 So. 2d 989 (Solomon v. New Era Meat 2) 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

Solomon v. New Era Meat 2, 961 So. 2d 989, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9965, 2007 WL 1827231 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, J.

Affirmed. See Smith v. Orhama Inc., 907 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 3 DCA 2005) (observing that it is the appellant’s burden to provide a record that will overcome the presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s findings and that “[wjhere there is no record of the testimony of witnesses or of evidentiary rulings, and where a statement of the record has not been prepared pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(3) or (b)(3), a judgment which is not fundamentally erroneous on its face must be affirmed” (quoting Ahmed v. Travelers Indem. Co., 516 So.2d 40, 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987))); Lisanti v. City of Port Richey, 787 So.2d 36, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (observing “[t]he elements for negligence are duty, breach, harm, and proximate cause; the additional elements for a claim of premises liability include the defendant’s possession or control of the premises and notice of the dangerous condition”); Warriner v. Doug Tower, Inc., 180 So.2d 384, 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (concluding “[t]he plaintiff has failed to provide this court with an adequate transcript of the evidence and it must be assumed, therefore, that there was insufficient evidence to take the case to the jury in view of the order granting the motion for directed verdict”).

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

WELLS, J.

Affirmed. See Smith v. Orhama Inc., 907 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 3 DCA 2005) (observing that it is the appellant’s burden to provide a record that will overcome the presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s findings and that “[wjhere there is no record of the testimony of witnesses or of evidentiary rulings, and where a statement of the record has not been prepared pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(3) or (b)(3), a judgment which is not fundamentally erroneous on its face must be affirmed” (quoting Ahmed v. Travelers Indem. Co., 516 So.2d 40, 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987))); Lisanti v. City of Port Richey, 787 So.2d 36, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (observing “[t]he elements for negligence are duty, breach, harm, and proximate cause; the additional elements for a claim of premises liability include the defendant’s possession or control of the premises and notice of the dangerous condition”); Warriner v. Doug Tower, Inc., 180 So.2d 384, 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (concluding “[t]he plaintiff has failed to provide this court with an adequate transcript of the evidence and it must be assumed, therefore, that there was insufficient evidence to take the case to the jury in view of the order granting the motion for directed verdict”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

961 So. 2d 989, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9965, 2007 WL 1827231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-v-new-era-meat-2-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack