ALEX K. EASTON, DOING BUSINESS AS GEORGE EASTON FURNITURE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD EARL WEIR, II, A MINOR, AND MURIEL A. WEIR, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF EDWARD EARL WEIR, II, A MINOR, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the award of damages for lost inventory and business profits. The appellate court held that the trial court properly resolved conflicting testimony and that the appellant failed to demonstrate the judgment was clearly erroneous.
No, the trial court did not err. The appellate court found that the trial court properly resolved conflicting testimony and that the appellant failed to meet the burden of showing the judgment was clearly erroneous. There was substantial, competent evidence to support the trial judge's ruling.
“The final judgment has .come to this court with a presumption of correctness and the appellant has the burden of showing that it is clearly erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review on appeal and the burden on the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff-appellant sued for damages to his furniture inventory and loss of business profits due to storage in the defendant-appellees' warehouse.…
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 Presumption Of Correctness On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff-appellant appeals from final judgment, rendered by the Court sitting without a jury, awarding the plaintiff $16,-000 damages for injury to his furniture inventory stored in defendant-appellees’ warehouse and for loss of business and profit attendant thereto. The two points on appeal concern only the issue of damages. Plaintiff contends that the trial court’s inadequate award of damages requires a new trial on the issue of damages and that the trial court erroneously cast the burden of proof upon the plaintiff as to the issue of mitigation of damages.
We have carefully examined the voluminous testimony, depositions, exhibits and the law presented by those briefs filed herein and, while there appears to be some conflicts in testimony, we conclude these were properly resolved by the trial court.
*2The final judgment has .come to this court with a presumption of correctness and the appellant has the burden of showing that it is clearly erroneous. See: Frell v. Frell, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 706; Dings v. Dings, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 227; and Gaer v. Gaer, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 789. Reversible error has not been shown. There is substantial, competent evidence to support the trial judge’s ruling. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 351; Lamb v. Dade County, Fla.App.1964,. 159 So.2d 477.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Easton v. Weir, 196 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1966)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 188 So. 2d 1.…
-
Kusens v. Johannesburg, 207 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…r, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 198; Althouse v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 859; Coleman v. Coleman, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 460. It was incumbent upon the appellants to make error appear. Easton v. Weir, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 1; City of South Bay v. Armstrong, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 21. Measuring the orders complained of in light of these principles, we find no error in the order discharging the escrow agent [see: McFadden v. Swinerton, 36 Or. 336, 59 P. 816, 62 P. 12; G…
Authorities Cited
- Dings v. Gwladys H. Dings, 161 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- J. C. Frell and Jeanne v. Frell, 154 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Davis v. Levin, 138 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Lamb v. Dade Cnty., 159 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Gaer v. Gaer, 168 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)