DEV-LAND DEMOLITION & SITE, INC.
v.
TREKKER TRACTOR, LLC
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 jury verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support it, and trial court jury instructions will not be reversed unless they resulted in a miscarriage of justice or were reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead the jury.
[1] A jury verdict must be sustained on appeal if any competent evidence supports it, regardless of the appellate court's view of its appropriateness.
[2] Trial courts have broad discretion in formulating jury instructions, and reversal is warranted only upon a showing of miscarriage of justice or that the instructions were…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[I]t is not the function of an appellate court to reevaluate the evidence and substitute its judgement for that of the jury. . . . [I]f there is any competent evidence to support a verdict, that verdict must be sustained regardless of the [appellate court's] opinion as to its appropriateness.”
Standard of review for jury verdicts on appeal
Dev-Land Demolition & Site, Inc. appealed a trial court judgment in a case against Trekker Tractor, LLC. The jury rendered a verdict against the appel…
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 Standard Of Review For Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed March 6, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1965 Lower Tribunal No. 16-25106
________________
Dev-Land Demolition & Site, Inc., et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Trekker Tractor, LLC,
Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge. Gulisano Law, PLLC and Michael Gulisano (Boca Raton), for appellants. The Barthet Firm, Paul D. Breitner, John C. Hanson, II, and Jessica A. Goldfarb, for appellee. Before MILLER, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ. MILLER, J.
Affirmed. See Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So. 2d
1187, 1189 (Fla. 1977) (“[I]t is not the function of an appellate court to reevaluate the evidence and substitute its judgement for that of the jury. . . .
[I]f there is any competent evidence to support a verdict, that verdict must be sustained regardless of the [appellate court’s] opinion as to its appropriateness. . . . [T]he question of whether defendant’s [liability] was the cause of the injury is generally one for the jury unless reasonable men could not differ in their determination of that question.”); see also R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. v. Neff, 325 So. 3d 872, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“A trial court is accorded broad discretion in the formulation of appropriate jury instructions and its decision should not be reversed unless the error complained of resulted in a miscarriage of justice or the jury instructions were reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead the jury.”) (quoting Chevron
U.S.A., Inc. Forbes, 783 So. 2d 1215, 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)); Morgan v.
State, 146 So. 3d 508, 512–13 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“The invited error doctrine provides that fundamental error may be waived where defense counsel affirmatively agrees to an improper jury instruction. The doctrine is founded on the principle that ‘a party may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of that error on appeal.’”) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So. 2d 197, 202–03 (Fla. 2001)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2001)
- Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Forbes, 783 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. & Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Neff, 325 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)