WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., APPELLANT,

v.

ROSE ELLA COX, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander, 123 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
  …are highly disfavored and rarely granted. Id. It is an equally well-established principle of our jurisprudence that a party may not stand idly by and allow the proceedings to continue without objection and later complain of error. Rooney v. Hannon, 732 So. 2d 408, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). [*74] Lorillard’s post-trial motion to interview Ms. Graham was based on post-trial research, which Lorillard could, and should, have conducted prior to entry of the verdict. Having already raised the issue of Ms. Graham’s…
• Sie Jenkins v. State, 732 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
  …t appellant could not. If appellant knew of conduct potentially affecting the jury, but failed to timely bring it to the trial court’s attention, the incident may not be raised as a ground for new trial or for a jury interview. See Rooney v. Hannon, 732 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The line of authority followed in Rooney requires a party who learns of acts potentially impacting the jurors to advise the court as soon as possible. Such a requirement is not unfair, since improper contact with a jury venire i…
• Sunshine Bottling Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 757 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
  …ntract, it did not cause Sunshine’s lost profits damages. Because the record does not affirmatively show the zero damages verdict was inadequate, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. See Rooney v. Hannon, 732 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); City of Hollywood v. Jarkesy, 343 So. 2d at 886. Accordingly, the case is reversed in part and remanded with instructions to reinstate the promissory estoppel verdict, and to award only Sunshine its costs. In all other respects…

Authorities Cited

• DE LA Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1995)