MARVIN SOLOMON, APPELLANT,
v.
NEW ERA MEAT # 2, 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.
Affirmed; appellant failed to provide adequate record to overcome presumption of correctness of trial court's directed verdict judgment.
Where an appellant fails to provide a record of witness testimony or evidentiary rulings, a judgment not fundamentally erroneous on its face must be affirmed.
[1] Appellant's failure to provide record of witness testimony or evidentiary rulings requires affirmance of trial court judgment that is not fundamentally erroneous on its f…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSolomon appealed a judgment from the trial court in a case against New Era Meat #2.…
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 Appellate Burden Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, J.
Affirmed. See Smith v. Orhama Inc., 907 So. 2d 594, 596 (Fla. 3 DCA 2005) (observing that it is the appellant’s burden to provide a record that will overcome the presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s findings and that “[wjhere there is no record of the testimony of witnesses or of evidentiary rulings, and where a statement of the record has not been prepared pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(3) or (b)(3), a judgment which is not fundamentally erroneous on its face must be affirmed” (quoting Ahmed v. Travelers Indem. Co., 516 So. 2d 40, 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987))); Lisanti v. City of Port Richey, 787 So. 2d 36, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (observing “[t]he elements for negligence are duty, breach, harm, and proximate cause; the additional elements for a claim of premises liability include the defendant’s possession or control of the premises and notice of the dangerous condition”); Warriner v. Doug Tower, Inc., 180 So. 2d 384, 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (concluding “[t]he plaintiff has failed to provide this court with an adequate transcript of the evidence and it must be assumed, therefore, that there was insufficient evidence to take the case to the jury in view of the order granting the motion for directed verdict”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bechtel Corp. v. Batchelor, 250 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…ce are duty, breach, harm, and proximate cause; the additional elements for a claim of premises liability include the defendant's possession or control of the premises and notice of the dangerous condition."). See also Solomon v. New ERA Meat No. 2, 961 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citing Lisanti, 787 So. 2d at 37 ). While we review the denial of a motion for directed verdict or judgment as a matter of law de novo , we must view the evidence and all inferences in a light most favorable to Batchelor. Fasani…
Authorities Cited
- Nuzhat Ahmed v. Travelers Indem. Co., 516 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Lisanti v. City OF Port Richey, 787 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Smith v. Orhama Inc., 907 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Warriner v. Doug Tower, Inc., 180 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)