SHARON L. ROLLINS, APPELLANT,
v.
MARILYN M. DICKERSON AND MISTI R. DELGADO, APPELLEES
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 trial court's judgment in plaintiff's favor and denial of motions for additur and new trial, holding that alleged trial errors were either unmeritorious or not properly preserved for appeal.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motions for new trial and additur because the alleged errors were either unmeritorious or not properly preserved through contemporaneous objection.
[1] An issue must be presented to the lower court with the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal as part of that presentation to be considered preserved fo…
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 intelligenceSharon L. Rollins obtained a judgment in her favor at trial but sought additur and, alternatively, a new trial based on alleged trial errors.…
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 Motion For Additur cases and more on FLexlaw
Sharon L. Rollins, the plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment in her favor and a subsequent order of the trial court denying her motion for additur and, alternatively, for new trial. We affirm, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial, as the alleged errors upon which the motion was premised are either unmeritorious or were not properly preserved. See Roth v. Cohen, 941 So.2d 496, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that an issue “must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved”) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993)). Had Rollins’ trial counsel made a specific, proper and contemporaneous objection, thereby giving the trial court adequate notice of the nature and impact of the alleged error, the trial court would have had the opportunity to fashion an appropriate remedy to ameliorate any error and cure the resulting prejudice which Rollins raises for the first time on appeal.
We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rollins’ motion for additur. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1998); Carnival Corp. v. Amato, 840 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Kmart Corp. v. Bracho, 776 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Myrda Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1998)
- Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1993)
- Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Roth v. Cohen, 941 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Kmart Corp. v. Bracho, 776 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Carnival Corp. v. Amato, 840 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)