Vega v. Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vega v. Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance

336 So. 2d 660, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15367

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 17, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1556

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 336 So. 2d 660 (Vega v. Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance) 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

Vega v. Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance, 336 So. 2d 660, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15367 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, Francisco and Adelida Vega, were the plaintiffs in the trial court. They recovered a verdict in the amount of approximately $400. This appeal is from that judgment.

Errors are assigned upon an evidentiary ruling and claimed prejudicial statements by the attorney for the defendant made at closing argument. The plaintiffs, after re[661]*661ceiving the verdict, did not file a motion for a new trial. We conclude that under these circumstances, thes claimed inadequacy of the verdict was not presented to the trial court.

The judgment must be affirmed upon the authority of the rule stated in Morrison v. Bohne, Fla.App.1973, 274 So.2d 896, and authorities cited therein. See also: O’Leary v. Watson, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 643; Malec v. Halter, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 782; Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Smith, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 557.

Affirmed.

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