JOHN DAVID COOKSEY, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Daniels v. State, 4 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
  …‘[T]he basis for a conclusion cannot be deduced or inferred from the conclusion itself. The opinion of the expert cannot constitute proof of the existence of the facts necessary to the support of the opinion.’ ” Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Carvalho, 895 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Arkin Coustr. Co. v. Simpkins, 99 So. 2d 557, 561 (Fla.1957)). The crux of Mr. Daniels’ argument is that Ms. Shulman’s opinion was inadmissible in evidence because it lacked a proper factual basis. Ms. Shulman exp…
• Chavez v. McDONALD'S Rest. OF Fla., Inc., 108 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
  …sis for a conclusion cannot be deduced or inferred from the conclusion itself. The opinion of the expert cannot constitute proof of the existence of the facts necessary to the support of the opinion.”); see also Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Carvalho, 895 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED. ORFINGER, C.J., SAWAYA and ■ COHEN, JJ., concur. . The trial judge made it clear that the basis for his ruling was that McDonald’s Restaurant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of c…
• Parc Royale E. Dev., Inc. v. U.S. Project Mgmt., Inc., 38 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
  …y is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Wynkoop v. State, 14 So. 3d 1166, 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). “[0]pin-ion testimony which contains conclusions or inferences not supported by the record is inadmissible.” Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Carvalho, 895 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Here, the expert’s opinion contained conclusions and inferences that were unsupported by the facts admitted into evidence. The expert’s damage calculations were based on a profit calculation for the third project, consist…

Authorities Cited

• State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987)