THE KEYES COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROCKY GRAZIANI, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES; ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ, APPELLANT, V. THE KEYES COMPANY, ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Factual Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Both parties appealing from judgments entered on adverse jury verdicts essentially complain that the verdicts represent an incorrect resolution of disputed factual issues. The appellant Keyes Company also argues that they are internally inconsistent with each other. We may not properly consider the first contention, e.g., Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. R., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); First National Bank of the Upper Keys v. Caribe Equipment Corp., 378 So. 2d 19 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1980), and the inconsistency point was waived by the failure to assert it at the trial. Robbins v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 769 (Fla.4th DCA 1981); Savoca v. Sherry Frontenac Hotel Operating Co., 346 So. 2d 1207 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Wiggs and Maale Construction Co. v. Harris, 348 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Crawford v. DiMicco, 216 So. 2d 769 (Fla.4th DCA 1968).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lira v. State, 579 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…y. Davis v. State, 510 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Walker v. State, 426 So. 2d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Clayton v. State, 422 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Combs v. State, 351 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); see also Scott v. State, 406 So. 2d 100, 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Because the order of revocation of community control is supported by two valid grounds, the order is affirmed, but the cause is remanded with directions to strike the finding that the defendant committed the crime of aggra…
-
Wolmer v. Chrysler Corp., 474 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…that contention because it was' not raised in the trial court. See Wiggs & Maale Construction Co. v. Harris, 348 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Gould v. National Bank of Florida, 421 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Keyes Co. v. Rocky Graziani, Inc., 406 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Moreover, a motion for a directed verdict is not the proper vehicle for challenging allegedly inconsistent verdicts. See Cutchins v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad, 101 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1958). IV As an alternative, Chrysler puts for…
-
Meyer v. State, 445 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…arsay evidence. See, e.g., Terry v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Brown v. State, 338 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Franklin v. State, 226 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Scott v. State, 406 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). However, a review of the hearing transcript shows that, although Meyer objected to the majority of hearsay evidence adduced at the hearing by the state, she did not object to her probation officer’s hearsay testimony that she had…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)
- Robbins v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Crawford v. DiMICCO, 216 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Wiggs & Maale Constr. Co. v. Harris, 348 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- State v. Puig, 346 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Carmelo Savoca and Marie Savoca v. Sherry Frontenac Hotel Operating Co., Inc., 346 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- First Nat'l Bank OF the Upper Keys v. Caribe Equip. Corp., 378 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)