MARSHALL C. BRAINARD AND M. A. BAER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND T/D/B/A PHYSICIANS SERVICE BUREAU, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES E. POOLE, 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.
This case involves an appeal by a collection agency from a jury verdict awarding damages for invasion of privacy. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's award of punitive damages.
Yes, there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict for punitive damages.
“The single question presented by appellants for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury's verdict for punitive damages, there being an apparent concession as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the compensatory damages award.”
This quote frames the sole legal issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, operators of a collection agency, were sued by the appellee for invasion of privacy. A jury returned a verdict awarding the appellee both …
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 Of Trial Court Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants, operators of a collection agency, have appealed a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict awarding plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages in a tort action for invasion of privacy.
The single question presented by appellants for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict for punitive damages, there being an apparent concession as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the compensatory damages award.
In our review of the record in this cause, we have given due consideration to the principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Our inquiry into the testimony adduced at the trial convinces us that there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. The jury’s findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed error or that the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous. See Stoller v. Jaffe, 125 So. 2d 310 (Fla.App.1961); Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson, 177 So.2d 50 (Fla.App.1965).
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Conner v. Atlas Aircraft Corp., 310 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…o the jury verdict. The jury’s finding will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed error or that the evidence [*354] demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous. Brainard v. Poole, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 510. As in the case sub judice, where a tenant has been wrongfully evicted by his landlord, he may recover general damages and in addition thereto, compensation for loss resulting from injury to his business including loss of profits. Young v. Cobbs, F…
-
Klingshirn Corp. OF Fla., Inc. v. Turk, 334 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…by the trial court has been made to appear. See, e. g., Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Colposcope of America, Inc., Fla. App. 1975, 308 So. 2d 52; Causeway Marina, Inc. v. Mandel, Fla.App. 1973, 276 So. 2d 71; Brainard v. Poole, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 510; Land v. Patroni, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 94; and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals §§ 316 and 346. We have considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in light of the controlling principles of law and have concluded that no error…
Authorities Cited
- OLD Equity Life Ins. Co. v. Franklyn Levenson, 177 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Stoller v. Jaffe, 125 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)