T. M. HOWERTON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH E. HAMMOCK, 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's verdict in favor of the plaintiff in an intentional tort case, finding sufficient evidence supported both the commission of the tort and the damages awarded.
Yes, the appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on both the commission of the tort and the damages awarded.
“Defendant appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in an action for compensatory and .punitive damages arising out of an intentional tort which was found by the jury to have been maliciously committed by the appellant against the plaintiff.”
Describes the nature of the case and the 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 plaintiff sued the defendant for compensatory and punitive damages, alleging an intentional tort. A jury found the tort was maliciously committed …
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 Review Of Jury Verdicts cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in an action for compensatory and .punitive damages arising out of an intentional tort which was found by the jury to have been maliciously committed by the appellant against the plaintiff.
The grounds for reversal urged by appellants are essentially directed to the sufficiency of the evidence as to both the commission of the tort and the amount of the damages arising therefrom. We have examined the transcript of testimony given before the jury and find that there was sufficient evidence which if believed, as it apparently was, is supportive of the jury’s verdict. It is apodictic that an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury when it comes to the function of reconciling conflicting testimony.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of Nick Sulin, 210 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 204 So. 2d 28.…
-
Dorothy Helen Dayton, M.D. v. Conger, 448 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…e, the probate court found that the beneficiaries had wrongfully procured the exercise of the power of appointment. It was well within the court’s discretion, therefore, to tax the court costs against the losing beneficiaries. In re Estate of Sulin, 204 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Of course, the probate court could also order these costs be paid out of the beneficiaries’ interest in the estate. § 733.106(4). For the foregoing reasons, the portions of the probate court’s order imposing personal liability o…
-
Howerton v. Hammock, 210 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 204 So. 2d 28.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence