GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,

v.

TRADE NATIONAL BANK, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Hernandez v. Gonzalez, 124 So. 3d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
  …es claims to the jury in toto. That this strategy failed neither requires nor permits this court to grant a new trial. See, e.g., E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Native Hammock Nursery, Inc., 698 So. 2d 267, 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Saxon v. Chacon, 539 So. 2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). As stated in Saxon: Obviously, counsel for plaintiff [who had refused to move for a mistrial] wanted to take his chances with the jury on the state of the evidence adduce…
• MCI Express, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. & Ford Motor Credit Co., 832 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
  …a request that the court reserve ruling, MCI merely stated that if the court were inclined to grant the mistrial and would not agree to reserve ruling then it would not move for a mistrial. Ford analogizes this situation to that in Saxon v. Chacon, 539 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), claiming that MCI wanted to take its chances with the jury and could [*799] not thereafter move for a mistrial. In Saxon, however, the trial court expressly asked plaintiffs counsel if he wanted to move for a mistrial, indicating…
• Kmart Corp. & O'Gorman Long, Inc. v. Hayes, 707 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
  …man & Wakefield v. Comreal Miami, Inc., 683 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Granting a new trial under circumstances where a party did not properly preserve the issue is an abuse of discretion. See Jackson, 433 So. 2d at 1322; Saxon v. [*958] Chacon, 539 So. 2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In our view, Hayes failed to preserve for review the issue of the defendants’ alleged use of false testimony. Hayes’s counsel did not raise a timely objection or an appropriate in-trial motion when confronted with Neg-ron’s c…

Authorities Cited

• Airocar, Inc. v. Goldman, 474 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
• Stoudt v. Sec. Inv. Co., 140 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)