ROSALBA MORA
v.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY 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 who fails to object to a verdict form at trial is precluded from challenging the verdict on appeal, and a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial motion when conflicting evidence was presented and the jury's verdict resulted from weighing that evidence.
[1] A party who fails to object to a verdict form or jury instructions at trial is precluded from raising such objections on appeal and cannot challenge the jury's verdict ba…
[2] On appeal from an order denying a motion for new trial based on manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion and will not reweigh…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 may not complain of a verdict form to which he does not object.”
Tidwell v. Toca, 362 So. 2d 85, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
Rosalba Mora appealed a trial court's denial of her motion for new trial in a dispute with Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company. Mora did n…
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 Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed September 18, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1065 Lower Tribunal No. 2022-0190-CA-01
________________
Rosalba Mora,
Appellant,
vs.
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge. Valiente, Carollo, & McElligott PLLC, and Matthew McElligott, for appellant. Link & Rockenbach, P.A., Kara Rockenbach Link and David A. Noel (West Palm Beach), for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hartzog v. State, 133 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“On appeal from an order granting or denying a motion for new trial based on manifest weight of the evidence, we review for abuse of discretion.”); Tidwell v. Toca, 362 So. 2d 85, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (“A party may not complain of a verdict form to which he does not object.”); Plana v. Sainz, 990 So. 2d 554, 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Because counsel for the plaintiffs agreed to the wording of the verdict form . . . the plaintiffs are precluded from asserting that the [verdict] entered by the jury was error.”); Hernandez v. Gonzalez, 124 So. 3d 988, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“Appellants' failure to object to the verdict form and jury instructions also prevents us from revisiting the jury verdict . . . ‘the jury cannot be faulted for doing exactly what it was instructed to do.’” (quoting Plana, 990 So. 2d at 557)); Alvarez v. Acosta, 324 So. 3d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“We cannot reweigh the evidence or determine that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial motion if there was conflicting evidence presented at trial and the jury's verdict was the product of its weighing that evidence to resolve the conflicts.”); Weatherly v. Louis, 31 So. 3d 803, 806-07 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“It is not for this Court to decide which side's evidence is more persuasive or whether the trial court reached the result this Court would have reached. Our role is limited to determining whether conflicting evidence was presented at trial—if so, we cannot find an abuse of discretion. Because the evidence was not clear and obvious but was, in fact, conflicting, we are compelled to affirm the final judgment.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Fell v. Carlin, 6 So. 3d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…Were we to consider this issue, however, we would nevertheless affirm. See Dep’t of Transp. v. Rosario, 782 So. 2d 927, 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Freeman, 709 So. 2d 549, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Plana v. Sainz, 990 So. 2d 554, 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Martin v. Chapman, 780 So. 2d 929, 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).…
-
Hernandez v. Gonzalez, 124 So. 3d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ff had waived any objection to the fact that the jury accepted this invitation and came back with nothing. Appellants’ failure to object to the verdict form and jury instructions also prevents us from revisiting the jury verdict. In Plana v. Sainz, 990 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), an adverse final judgment was entered against a plaintiff following the jury’s zero verdict in a personal injury action. Plaintiff alleged on appeal that the trial court erred by denying the plaintiffs motion for new trial, where…
-
Finkel v. Yarielsi Batista and Rodney Sanchez, 202 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…, 991-92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (providing a non-exhaustive list of exceptions). Examples of such exceptions include lack of candor with treating physicians and conflicting medical opinions on whether the accident caused any injury. See Plana v. Sainz, 990 So. 2d 554, 656-57 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (distinguishing Sparks-Book and recognizing these exceptions, among others). In this case, the parties presented conflicting expert medical opinions on causation. The evidence presented by both parties, including the test…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tidwell v. Toca, 362 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Hernandez v. Gonzalez, 124 So. 3d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Plana v. Sainz, 990 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Weatherly v. Louis, 31 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Alton Hartzog v. State, 133 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Alvarez v. Acosta, 324 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)