ROGER YOST, HERBERT W. ABRAMSON AND IVAN PHILLIPS, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, AND ALL OTHER SHAREHOLDERS OF CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HOWARD SONN, STUART E. WILSON, EUGENE SNIDOW AND H & M CATTLE COMPANY, APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
The order under review is reversed insofar as it withholds execution on an award of appellate costs relating to a prior appeal in this cause, Yost v. Congress International Corp., 378 So. 2d 1300 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), as, in our view, Fla.R.App.P. 9.400(a) clearly entitles the appellant to an immediate award of such costs without stay of execution thereon. In all other respects, the order under review is affirmed. The cause is, accordingly, remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate that portion of the order under review which withholds execution of the award of appellate costs.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…(Fla. 3d DCA 1982), we gave notice that “[ajrguments in derogation of Fla.Bar Code Prof.Resp. EC 7-24, DR 7-106(C)(3), (4) will not be condoned in this court, nor should they be condoned by the trial court, even absent objection. Hillson v. Deeson, 383 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).” [e.o.]7 We hereby make that promise good and inform the plaintiffs — as we likely would have the defendant if it had won — and those in all future such cases that we will not supinely ratify the result of a trial like the presen…
-
B.G. Wasden v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 474 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ental error absent a preserving contemporaneous objection. A trial judge can and should intervene to prohibit improper comments even when opposing counsel does not object. See Schreier v. Parker, 415 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hillson v. Deeson, 383 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). This is not to say, however, that the duty of counsel to object is in any way alleviated. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Marcus, 440 So. 2d 373, 376 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). As suggested in Florida Motor Co. v. Marcus and in Nelson v.…
-
Schreier v. Parker, 415 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…CA 1980) apparently has not been forthcoming. Arguments in derogation of Fla.Bar Code Prof.Resp. EC7—24, DR7— 106(CX3), (4) will not be condoned in this court, nor should they be condoned by the trial court, even absent objection. Hillson v. Deeson, 383 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We trust that on retrial, counsel will limit their arguments to their views of the evidence in conformance with the provisions of the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility. Reversed and remanded for further proceeding…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yost v. Cong. Int'l Dev. Corp., 378 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- James D. Emery et ux. v. Milton, 378 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)