OMER CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS REMO'S RESTAURANT, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE DUKE, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1968-05-28
No. 67-718
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
211 So. 2d 48 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1968) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, which was the defendant in the trial court, appeals a final judgment and assigns as error the trial court’s denial of its motion for a new trial. It affirmatively appears from the record that a procedural irregularity, which was the basis of the motion for a new trial, occurred during the final argument of appellant’s counsel before the jury retired. Appellant’s counsel learned of it before the jury returned to deliver its verdict, but he did not complain until the adverse verdict had been announced. Under these circumstances we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, for a new trial. See Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company, Fla.1961, 130 So.2d 580, 587, 588.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Arlee Jackson and Mugge Rivers, 433 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
    …4th DCA 1974) (same). See also Berger v. Nathan, 66 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1953) (no error in denying new trial where objection raised for first time in motion for new trial); Miller v. Pace. 71 Fla, 274, 71 So. 276 (1916) (same); Omer Corporation v. Duke, 211 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (same); Park v. Belford Trucking Co., 165 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. dismissed, 174 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1965) (same). Cf. Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Company v. Patterson, 385 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (mistrial motion…
  • Bishop v. Watson, 367 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
    …v. Davis, supra. The order granting new trial is reversed, and the cause is remanded for entry of judgment on the verdict. . Miller v. Pace, 71 Fla. 274, 71 So. 276 (1916); Berger v. Nathan, 66 So. 2d 278, 280 (Fla.1953); Omer Corporation v. Duke, 211 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Rose’s Stores, Inc. v. Mason, 338 So. 2d 1323, 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). . See citations in footnote 1. . Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701, 169 So. 372, 379 (1936); Smith v. Jackson County, 134 Fla. 354, 183 So. 738 (1938); Tyus…
  • Rose's Stores v. Mason, 338 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
    …to give any charge unless he requested the same.” As a general rule, in order to preserve an alleged ground for a new trial, an objection must be made at the time the event occurs. Miller v. Pace, 71 Fla. 274, 71 So. 276 (1916); Omer Corp. v. Duke, 211 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). This is true in reference to a motion for new trial based upon the ground that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury. Berger v. Nathan, 66 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1953); Gordon v. St. Mary’s Hospital, Inc., 305 So. 2d 234…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw