PRINCE MICHAEL CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND MICHAEL ALAN CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
HULDA ZUCKER, 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 a jury verdict in a personal injury case, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision, but directed the lower court to remove an erroneous cost award for plane fare.
Yes, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. However, the award for plane fare was erroneous.
“The verdict in the instant case, as in all cases, comes before this court clothed with the presumption of correctness, and we must review the evidence, taking all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, in a light most favorable to the appellee.”
This quote establishes the standard of review for jury verdicts on appeal.
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, defendants in the trial court, appealed a final judgment based on a jury verdict in a personal injury action. They also challenged an …
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
The appellants, defendants in the trial court, seek review of an adverse final judgment based upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action. They have also raised the question of the propriety of certain costs awarded the plaintiff in the trial court, by virtue of an amended order taxing costs. The appellee has conceded the questioned costs were erroneous, thus the only point preserved for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
The verdict in the instant case, as in all cases, comes before this court clothed with the presumption of correctness, and we must review the evidence, taking all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, in a light most favorable to the ap-pellee. Martin v. Tindell, Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 473; Food Fair Stores of Florida v. Vallarelli, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 161. Therefore, as an examination of the record on appeal in its entirety reveals evidence which would support the jury’s verdict [although we might have decided the cause differently had we been the trier of the facts], the verdict and judgment thereon is sustained.
The final judgment rendered below is affirmed, with directions to eliminate from the amended order the sum of $133.21, taxing costs for the plane fare to New York.
Affirmed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Booker v. Udelio Lima and Mary Lima, 182 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)….App. 1965, 171 So. 2d 202; Busbee v. Quarrier, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 17. And, if there is any evidence to support same, it should be affirmed. See: Kowalczyk v. Brudder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So. 2d 532; Prince Michael Corp. v. Zucker, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 332; Miami Shores Village v. Lingler, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 716. We have examined the record in light of these principles and find sufficient, competent evidence to support the jury’s finding and, therefore, we affirm the final judgment here under re…
-
The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc. v. The Fed. Detective Agency, Inc., 157 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…[See: Snider v. Bancroft Inv. Corp., Fla. 1952, 61 So. 2d 184; Bowser v. Harder, Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 752] and, upon review of this record, all inferences are resolved in favor of the plaintiff. See: Prince Michael Corp. v. Zucker, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 332; F. W. Woolworth Company v. Stevens, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 201. It was within the province of the jury, upon the evidence presented to them, to conclude that A & P not only ratified the acts of its agent, Sharp, but in fact authorized the insti…
-
Jefferson Stores, Inc. v. Caudell, 228 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…ew the facts in a light most favorable to her. See Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Federal Detective Agency, Fla.App. 1963, 157 So. 2d 148; F. W. Woolworth Company v. Stevens, Fla.App. 1963, 154 So. 2d 201; and Prince Michael Corp. v. Zucker, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 332. The facts reviewed in that light are taken from plaintiff’s brief and reveal that “On November 5, 1967, Jean Caudell, a frequent shopper at Jefferson Stores, [*100] was in the Jefferson’s Store located at S.W. 104th Street and South U.S. #1. She…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin v. Maynard R. Tindell, 98 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1957)
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Clementine Vallarelli and her husband, 101 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)