PAUL J. NASRALLAH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS FATHER, NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF VICTORIA ANN NASRALLAH AND MICHAEL NASRALLAH, MINORS, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN CORLEY AND WALTEEN G. CORLEY, 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.
The court held that the plaintiff's appeal points were not properly raised or argued, and therefore could not be considered.
The plaintiff appealed a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict awarding damages in their favor. The appeal raised procedural errors and th…
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 Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
The above styled appeal from the circuit court of Dade County is by the plaintiff in that court. The order, judgment or decree of which review is sought is a final judgment at law for the plaintiffs, appellants. This final judgment was entered pursuant to a jury verdict awarding the plaintiffs damages. The plaintiffs, appellants, have presented three points, all alleging procedural errors in the cause.
None of the points raised question the court’s ruling upon a motion for a new trial directed to the sufficiency of the verdict. Inasmuch as a plaintiff’s appeal from a judgment at law based on a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor must be based upon the denial of a motion for new trial raising the question of the adequacy of the damage, these points may not be considered. Paul v. Kanter, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 402, 403.
Appellant has in fact assigned as error the denial of his motion for new. trial but said assignment is not argued and is therefore abandoned. Pentecost v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 395.
Appellants’ remaining point is directed to the assessment of costs and no substantial question is raised in argument under said point.
Therefore this appeal be and the same is hereby quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Time Ins. Co. v. Shelton Arnold, 319 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…y’s fee was therefore erroneous. Although Time assigned as error the assessment of costs, appellant waived the point by failing to brief and argue it. Tri-State Enterprises, Inc. v. Berkowitz, 182 So. 2d 40 (Fla.App. 2d, 1966); Nasrallah v. Corley, 180 So. 2d 476 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1965). In this respect the judgment will be sustained. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. McCORD, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.…
-
Edwards v. POE, 203 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…the material issue of liability. This point is based on appellant’s assignments of error numbers 3, 6 and 10, and accordingly, under the Florida Appellate Rules, all other assignments of error are deemed abandoned. Nasrallah v. Corely, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 476; F.A.R. 3.7(i), 32 F.S.A. Our chief concern here is with appellant’s assignment of error number three (3), which alleges that the court erred in giving, over plaintiff’s objection, each of defendants’ requested instructions Nos. 2, 6, 8 and 12. To…
-
JIM Walter Corp. v. Andrew John Bracht et ux., 239 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…points on appeal and, therefore, may not be considered by us in reaching our decision.1 Appellants having failed to demonstrate error, the judgment appealed is affirmed. JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur. . Nasrallah v. Corley (Fla.App.1965) 180 So. 2d 476; Joe Reinertson, Inc. v. Nelson (Fla.App.1964) 160 So. 2d 723; Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Banner Trading Co. (Fla.App.1963) 157 So. 2d 201.…
Authorities Cited
- Fay S. Paul v. Risa Bonnie Kanter & the Hertz Corp., 155 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Pentecost v. City OF Miami, 155 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)