WILLIAM MIRSKY AND MARY MIRSKY, D/B/A MARLYN'S BEAUTY SALON, APPELLANTS,
v.
BELLE BURGER, 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.
This case reviews whether a trial judge erred in denying a motion for a new trial based on insufficient evidence. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the record contained substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict.
No, the trial judge did not err in denying the motion for a new trial. The appellate court found substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict.
“The only question preserved for review on this appeal is whether or not the trial judge erred in denying the motion for new trial, which motion was grounded principally upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.”
This quote states the central issue 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, William and Mary Mirsky, doing business as Marlyn's Beauty Salon, appealed a jury verdict against them. Their primary argument for a 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 Appellant'S Burden To Demonstrate Error cases and more on FLexlaw
The only question preserved for review on this appeal is whether or not the trial judge erred in denying the motion for new trial, which motion was grounded principally upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
*897 The trial judge’s orders are met in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Southern Pine Extracts Company v. Bailey, Fla. 1954, 75 So.2d 774; Ward v. Hopkins, Fla. 1955, 81 So.2d 493; Fuote v. Maule, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 563. It is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: Dowling v. Loftin, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 283; Green-Mar Builders, Inc. v. Pearlman, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So.2d 601. The record contains substantial, competent evidence to support the jury’s verdict and, therefore, the appellant having failed to demonstrate error, the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dowling v. Loftin, 72 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1954)
- Ward v. Hopkins, 81 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1955)
- Fuote v. Grayson Maule and Barbara Maule, 143 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Green-Mar Builders, Inc. v. Jules Pearlman, 109 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- S. Pine Extracts Co. v. Bailey, 75 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1954)