ALVIN FUOTE AND DOROTHY FUOTE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
GRAYSON MAULE AND BARBARA MAULE, HIS WIFE, 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.
This case reviews whether there was sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict in favor of the appellees. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that appellate courts should not re-evaluate witness credibility or the weight of testimony, but rather determine if substantial evidence supports the verdict.
Yes, there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. Appellate courts are not tasked with re-evaluating witness credibility or the weight of testimony.
“It is not the function of an appellate court to consider the credibility of the witnesses, nor the weight to be given to particular testimony.”
Establishes the limited role of an appellate court in reviewing jury verdicts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants appealed a final judgment entered after a jury verdict against them. The appellants' post-trial motions were denied by the trial court.…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Jury Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants appeal from a final judgment based upon an adverse jury verdict, and the only error properly preserved for our review is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
The jury verdict in this case was for the appellee-plaintiff, and the post-trial motions filed by the appellant-defendant were denied. The verdict arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. Snider v. Bancroft Inv. Corp., Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 184. It is not the function of an appellate court to consider the credibility of the witnesses, nor the weight to be given to particular testimony. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Goff, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 638. The only question to be considered by an appellate court is whether there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. Dowling v. Loftin, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 283. As the jury’s verdict arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness, so did the trial judge’s order denying the motion for new trial and other post-trial motions. Dowling v. Loftin, supra. Examining the conflicting evidence in this record, in light of the above principles, no reversible error has been shown and the final judgment is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
PIX Shoes OF Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, 201 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…a 101, 159 N.W. 604; 66 C.J.S. New Trial § 196, pages 465, 470. His ruling arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Bailey v. Lloyd, Fla.1953, 62 So. 2d 56; Ward v. Hopkins, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 493; Fuote v. Maule, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 563. In order to overturn the trial judge’s denial of the motion for new trial, it is incumbent upon the appellant to clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion. See: Morin v. Halpern, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 495; Freeman v. Bandlow, Fla.App.1962, 143…
-
Thal v. Roth, 173 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…position of appellant was a disputed question of fact properly submitted to the jury and determined adversely to the appellant. Since there is evidence to support the conclusion of the jury it will not be reversed here. Fuoté v. Maule, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 563. Appellant’s points four and five are directed to rulings of the trial court as to the amendment of the answer and the admission of certain evidence. In each instance the appellant has failed to demonstrate harmful error. Affirmed.…
-
Sweeney v. Lorene Wiggins & Allstate Ins. Co., 350 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…evidence to support the verdict which arrives in this court with a presumption of correctness. It is not the function of this court to consider the credibility of the witnesses nor the weight to be given to particular testimony. See Fuote v. Maule, 143 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) and cases cited therein. In light of the above principles of law, we note that the jury was given a comparative negligence charge and inherent in their verdict was a finding of negligence on the part of both Sweeney and Wiggins. I…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commercial Credit Corp. v. Varn, 108 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Goff, 108 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Dowling v. Loftin, 72 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1954)