ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
M. HELD PLUMBING CO., INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the final judgment because the jury's verdict was supported by substantial competent evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding evidentiary rulings.
Astaldi Construction Corp. (general contractor) and M. Held Plumbing (subcontractor) had disputes on six projects, leading Held to sue Astaldi for bre…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney-Client Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Astaldi Construction Corp. appeals from a final judgment entered on a jury verdict in a breach of contract action. We affirm.
Astaldi was the general contractor on six projects; M. Held Plumbing was the subcontractor on these projects. Disputes arose between the parties and eventually led to Held suing the contractor for breach of contract and improper termination.
After lengthy discovery, the case went to trial. The jury specifically found that the contractor had breached the agreements on all projects, and awarded Held damages totalling $973,422.04. The trial court entered a final judgment pursuant to the jury verdict.
We affirm the final judgment because the verdict on all issues submitted to the jury for consideration is supported by substantial' competent evidence. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Florida Rock & Sand Co., 682 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (affirming judgment based on jury verdict that was supported by substantial competent evidence); Archilla v. President Supermarket, Inc., 654 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (same).
We further hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion with regards to the evidentiary rulings challenged on appeal. See Abamar Housing & Dev., Inc. v. Lisa Daly Lady Decor, Inc., 698 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA) (inadvertent disclosure of “attorney-client privileged documents” does not constitute a waiver of that privilege), review denied, 704 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1997).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spacco v. State, 739 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…defendant of the complete terms of a plea agreement, including whether a period of incarceration will or may be followed by a term of probation, and the failure to do so will entitle the defendant to post-conviction relief); see also Allen v. State, 710 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bouie v. State, 360 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA); Green v. Dugger, 575 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Jefferson v. State, 515 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Cf. Perras v. State, 550 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 562…
-
Gen. Motors Corp. v. McGEE, 837 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…tion, the erroneous production was prejudicial to GM. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the five factors to determine that GM produced Document 233 inadvertently. See Astaldi Constr. Corp. v. M. Held Plumbing Co., 710 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (applying abuse of discretion standard to the trial court’s determination of whether production was inadvertent). Further, unlike the discovery of Documents 210, 213, and 225, Document 233 was made available to the court upon the…
Authorities Cited
- Abamar Hous. & Dev., Inc. v. Lisa Daly Lady Decor, Inc., 698 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Archilla v. President Supermarket, Inc., 654 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Fla. Rock & Sand Co., 682 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)