RAMON LASA GONZALEZ, ET AL.
v.
SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
A party must file a timely post-verdict motion for entry of judgment in accordance with any motion for directed verdict to preserve issues for appellate review.
[1] Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 1.480(b), a party must file a timely post-verdict motion for entry of judgment in addition to any motion for directed verdict to…
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 intelligence“a party must obtain a ruling from the trial court in order to preserve an issue for appellate review”
Carratelli v. State, cited for the principle that preservation requires obtaining a trial court ruling
Appellants Ramon Lasa Gonzalez and others appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in a case against SafePoint Insurance Compa…
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 Insurance Claim Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 12, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-2195 Lower Tribunal No. 18-39111 ________________
Ramon Lasa Gonzalez, et al., Appellants,
vs.
SafePoint Insurance Company, Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.
Font & Nelson, PLLC, Angel I. Rivera, and Jose P. Font (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants.
Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, Frieda C. Lindroth, and Patrick M. Chidnese (Tampa), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Indus. Affiliates, Ltd. v. Testa, 770 So. 2d 202, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“Even though the trial court orally denied the motions for directed verdict during trial, [Rule 1.480(b)] treats the denial as constituting a reservation of ruling.”); Carratelli v. State, 832 So. 2d 850, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (finding challenge to defense counsel’s statement during jury selection was not preserved for appellate review because motion was not properly pursued and ruling not obtained based on “[a] plethora of Florida cases [that] support the notion that a party must obtain a ruling from the trial court in order to preserve an issue for appellate review”); Roosevelt v. State, 42 So. 3d 293, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (determining defendant failed to serve timely post-verdict motion and preserve matter for appellate review because “it was necessary that the defendant renew the motion [for directed verdict] at the conclusion of the case and make the appropriate post-trial motion”); Murray v. State, 27 So. 3d 781, 781–82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“The defense made timely motions for a directed verdict. However, [Rule] 1.480(b) has been interpreted as requiring a party to file, in addition, a postverdict motion for entry of judgment in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict.”); see also Olsen v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 343 So. 3d 172, 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (finding no reversible error as to secondary issue
3 that could lead to reversal because jury answered “no” to threshold question on verdict form).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carratelli v. State, 832 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Mendes v. State, 770 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Alton Roosevelt v. State, 42 So. 3d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Sonny S. Manzano v. State, 27 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Olsen v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 343 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)