Toemmes v. Proctor

Supreme Court of Florida

Toemmes v. Proctor

136 So. 622, 102 Fla. 918

DecidedSeptember 14, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 136 So. 622 (Toemmes v. Proctor) 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

Toemmes v. Proctor, 136 So. 622, 102 Fla. 918 (Fla. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— Tbe question presented in this case is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict rendered, which has the approval of the trial judge who denied a motion for a directed verdict as well as a motion for a new trial. There is found in the record substantial evidence to support the verdict and judgment rendered, and therefore the judgment should be and is hereby affirmed. See 5th Headnote Pillet vs. Erschick, 99 Fla. 484, 126 So. 784.

Affirmed.

Whiteield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

— Tbe question presented in this case is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict rendered, which has the approval of the trial judge who denied a motion for a directed verdict as well as a motion for a new trial. There is found in the record substantial evidence to support the verdict and judgment rendered, and therefore the judgment should be and is hereby affirmed. See 5th Headnote Pillet vs. Erschick, 99 Fla. 484, 126 So. 784.

Affirmed.

Whiteield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 So. 622, 102 Fla. 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toemmes-v-proctor-fla-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack