NIXON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION, AND D. H. OVERMYER CO., INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
G. W. DOVER, 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 of a final judgment where the appellants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict and that it was not the court's role to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact.
Yes, the appellate court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict and the resulting judgment.
“In our review of the record we have given due consideration to the applicable appellate principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness.”
Establishes the standard of review for the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, Nixon Construction Company and D. H. Overmyer Co., sought review of an adverse final judgment entered in favor of appellee, G. W. Dover. T…
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
Appellants seek review of an adverse final judgment rendered in favor of appel-lee. The principal question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.
In our review of the record we have given due consideration to the applicable appellate principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Our review of the record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict and judgment thereon. It is not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These 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 *459reached are erroneous. The other issues raised by appellants have been considered and are likewise considered not to be the basis for reversal.
The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. The City OF Hollywood, 329 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976)…antic National Bank v. Cobbett, 82 So. 2d 870 (Fla.1955) ; In Re Baldridge’s Estate, 74 So. 2d 658 (Fla.1954) ; Povia v. Melvin, 66 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1953) ; Ford Motor Co. v. Waters, 273 So. 2d 96 (Fla.App. 3d 1973) ; Nixon Construction Co. v. Dover, 218 So. 2d 458 (Fla.App. 1st 1969) ; St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Conley, 201 So. 2d 618 (Fla.App. 4th 1967) ; 2 Fla.Jur. Appeals, § 346 (1963). . City of Hollywood, supra, at 868-870. . Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 731 (1961). . Id. at 395. .…
-
Asgrow-Kilgore Co. v. Mulford Hickerson Corp., 301 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 1974)…82 [*442] So. 2d 19 (1973) and the cases of Westerman v. Shell’s City, Inc., 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1972) ; First Atlantic National Bank v. Cobbett, 82 So. 2d 870 (Fla.1955); In re Baldridge’s Estate, 74 So. 2d 6S8 (Fla.1954); Nixon Const. Co. v. Dover, 218 So. 2d 458 (Fla.App.1st 1969); and In re Estate of Brown, 201 So. 2d 616 (Fla.App. 4th 1967).1 In pertinent part, these cases stand for the proposition that an appellate court must not substitute its judgment of the facts for that of the trier of fact if the l…
-
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Percefull, 638 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…t interest in a contract action. It has long been the rule that in contract actions interest is allowable from the date that the debt is due. Parker v. Brinson Constr. Co., 78 So. 2d 873 (Fla.1955); English & American Ins. Co. v. Swain Groves, Inc., 218 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). We do not interpret Argonaut or Alvarado as receding from this rule. In the instant ease the policy provided for immediate payment following written proof of loss. Thus, prejudgment interest is payable from that date. In so fin…
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