SOUTHEASTERN GENERAL CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
A. G. GORFF, JR., D/B/A FORT MYERS PLUMBING COMPANY, 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 favor of the appellee, finding that the jury's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court's jury instructions were adequate. The court emphasized that it would not substitute its judgment for that of the jury when competent evidence supported the verdict.
Yes, the jury's verdict was supported by competent substantial evidence, and no, the trial court did not err in refusing the requested jury instruction because the law was fairly presented to the jury through the given instructions.
“We have carefully reviewed the record and find that the verdict of the jury is supported therein by competent substantial evidence which accords with logic and reason.”
Establishes the court's finding that the jury's verdict was factually supported.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSoutheastern General Corporation (appellant) appealed a final judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of A.G. Gorff, Jr. (appellee). The appeal ce…
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 Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment in favor of the appellee based upon a jury verdict.
We have carefully reviewed the record and find that the verdict of the jury is supported therein by competent substantial evidence which accords with logic and reason. Although it is true there is conflicting testimony, the jury has resolved these conflicts in favor of the appellee and, therefore, we are precluded from substituting our judgment for that of the jury.
The appellant has assigned as error the denial of the trial court to include in its instructions to the jury its requested instruction Number 4. It is well settled that an assignment of error based upon an instruction cannot prevail where the law appears to have been fairly presented to the *274jury, considering the instruction in question in light of all other instructions hearing on the same subject.
We have carefully reviewed the entire instructions given the jury by the trial judge and find that the lower court correctly and adequately instructed the jury in this cause.
For the foregoing reasons the final judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ashland OIL, Inc. v. Rod Pickard, 269 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…omplete, we express the view that in their totality the actual charges given impartially addressed the salient issues of the cause. See: Stiles v. Calvetto, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 17; Southeastern General [*723] Corporation v. Gorff, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 273; see also: Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Urton, Fla. 1968, 207 So. 2d 273. The appellants contend that the compensatory damages for lost profits were based only upon speculative evidence, particularly where plaintiffs conducted a new business. We rejec…
-
Gates & Sons, Inc. v. Brock, 199 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…on has been given to all the instructions which were given and on the whole these instructions adequately covered the law applicable to the issues involved in this case. Montgomery v. Stary, 84 So. 2d 34 (Fla.1955); Southeastern Gen. Corp. v. Gorff, 186 So. 2d 273 (Fla.App.2d, 1966). Finally, appellant argues that both the issues of negligence and breach of implied warranty of fitness should not have been allowed to go to the jury. Instead, plaintiff should have elected on which theory he wished to proceed.…
-
AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 367 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…Co. v. Valdes, 348 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). There being competent substantial evidence to support the finding of an explosion by the jury, this court must affirm the judgment entered pursuant thereto. Southeastern General Corporation v. Gorff, 186 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) and 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review §§ 345, 346 (1978). Defendant insurors also contend the awards of $55,000 as an attorney’s fee and $11,624.76 for costs (i. e. to compensate Florida Power & Light’s expert witness) were excessive…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence