HELEN W. THOMPSON ET VIR, APPELLANTS,
v.
BARBARA ROLAND, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error despite conflicting testimony. The court also denied a motion to strike a point from the appellants' brief.
No, there was no reversible error. The conflicting testimony justified the jury verdict, and the trial judge's ruling was supported by the evidence presented.
“We find an unusual conflict in the testimony of the parties such as would justify a jury verdict as in this case, ruling against the plaintiff on her claim and against the defendant on her counterclaim.”
This quote establishes the court's finding regarding the conflicting testimony and its sufficiency to support the jury's verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves conflicting testimony between the appellants (plaintiffs) and the appellee (defendant) regarding claims and counterclaims. The trial…
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
We have studied the briefs and the testimony of the parties which appear in the record before us. We find an unusual conflict in the testimony of the parties such as would justify a jury verdict as in this case, ruling against the plaintiff on her claim and against the defendant on her counterclaim.
We have considered and studied all of the questions raised in the briefs of each party and conclude, under the testimony before the trial judge, that no reversible error was made by him. We, therefore, affirm this case.
The appellee moved to strike Point II of appellants’ brief which was deferred by the court until consideration of the case on its merits. We deny the motion of appellee to strike Point II of appellants’ brief.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, C. J., and. ALLEN and WHITE, JJ.j concur.