RICHARD JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC. AND SYLVIA DOBRZANSKI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY S. DOBRZANSKI, DECEASED, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Causation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial in this personal injury suit growing out of a plane crash. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention on appeal, the jury was entitled to conclude that the cause of the crash or of plaintiff’s injuries had not been proved to be defendant’s negligence.
As to plaintiff’s contention that the verdict did not reflect the jury’s conclusions, we disagree and affirm. See Fitzell v. Rama Industries, Inc., 416 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Cummings v. Sine, 404 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Velsor v. Allstate Insurance Co., 329 So. 2d 391, 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
Nor do we conclude that there was reversible error in the admission of certain evidence or in prejudicial remarks of defendant’s counsel in closing argument. Plaintiff’s remaining points regarding damages are moot.
Affirmed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant’s motion for rehearing is one among many inspiring us again to comment upon the purpose of Rule 9.330 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. In spite of the court’s admonition expressed in Whipple v. State, 431 So. 2d 1011 (Fla.2d DCA 1983), Rule 9.330 continues to occupy a singular status of abuse. In each instance of the Rule’s misuse, the time and effort of three judges is wasted, not to mention the time, energy and effort of the Clerk’s office and other persons who function in the court’s processes. It is our hope, and certainly expectation, that the bar will heed the Rule’s command that the “motion shall not re-argue the merits of the court’s order.” The instant motion is a paradigm of the abuse giving rise to our reaction.
The motion for rehearing is denied.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alton (Bud) Parker v. Baker, 499 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…Appellee’s motion for rehearing is dismissed. Fla.R.App.P. 9.330(a); Department of Revenue v. Leadership Housing, Inc., 322 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1975). See also Jackson v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Whipple v. State, 431 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Sherwood v. State, 111 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Every point mentioned in the motion for rehearing was argued by appellee in his brief and oral argument and was addressed…
-
Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes, 631 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…motion practice perseveres, “the fear might arise that all motions for rehearing would, at least initially, be viewed with skepticism by a busy court.” Id. at 848. The same court had earlier stated in Jackson v. United States Aviation Underwriters, 466 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), albeit to no avail: In each instance of the Rule’s misuse, the time and effort of three judges is wasted, not to mention the time, energy and effort of the Clerk’s office and the other persons who function in the court’s process…
-
Patton v. State Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 597 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ent. We deny the motion for rehearing based on Whipple v. State, 431 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also Parker v. Baker, 499 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied, 506 So. 2d 1040 (Fla.1987); Jackson v. U.S. Aviation Underwriters, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA), dismissed, 472 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1985). Mr. Patton was served with a paternity action in October 1987. He filed a pro se answer which admitted sexual relations at or near the critical time, but denied paternity. Mr. Patton changed his…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whipple v. State, 431 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Clark Summer Velsor and Georgia Lee Velsor v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Ronald Miller, 329 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Cummings v. Sine, 404 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Fitzell v. Rama Indus., Inc., 416 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)