CHARLES F. STEWART AND MARY NELL STEWART, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES HOWARD DRAWDY, 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 court held that jury instructions must be viewed in light of the evidence and other instructions, and if the jury was not confused, the judgment should be affirmed.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, sued in ejectment and a jury returned a verdict for the appellee/defendant. The appellants appealed, arguing the trial c…
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, plaintiffs below, commenced this action in ejectment and a jury trial was held. The jury returned its verdict in favor of the appellee/defendant. By this timely appeal appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting certain requested jury instructions of the appellee and instructing the jury pursuant to said instructions.
After careful consideration of the record, briefs of the parties, and applicable case law, we do not find reversible error in the trial court’s final judgment.
We aré of the opinion that jury instructions must be viewed in light of the evidence before reversible error can be ascertained; and, if it appears that the jury has not been confused or deceived, the judgment must be affirmed. See Crosby v. Stubblebine, Fla.App. 1962, 142 So.2d 358.
In support of our conclusion, we cite the case of Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App. 1961, 130 So.2d 113, in which the late Judge Kanner of this court stated:
In order to determine whether an instruction is erroneous, it should be considered in connection with all the other instructions given, and the pleadings and evidence in the case. Georgia Southern & F. Ry. Co. v. Hamilton Lumber Co., 1912, 63 Fla. 150, 58 So. 838. So, in passing upon a single instruction, such instruction must be judged in the light of all other instructions given, bearing upon the same subject, and if when so judged, the law appears to have been fairly presented to the jury, an assignment of error based upon the instruction assailed cannot prevail. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Haynes, Fla. 1950, 47 So.2d 324.
We further note under the totality of the circumstances of this case that we do not deem the function of this court to be to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.
The final judgment of the trial court is, therefore,
Affirmed.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yacker v. Teitch, 330 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…qualified privilege. Jury instructions must be viewed in light of the evidence before reversible error can be ascertained. If it appears that the jury has not been confused or deceived, the judgment must be affirmed. Stewart v. Drawdy, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 803. In determining whether a specific instruction is erroneous, it should be considered with all the other instructions given, and the pleadings and evidence in the case. Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 113. The proper test is whether the cha…
-
Harnly v. Watson, 519 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…, petition for review denied, 456 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1984). In order to determine whether the giving or refusing to give an instruction is error, we must consider the pleadings, the evidence, and the other instructions of the court. Stewart v. Drawdy, 277 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); see also, Matalón v. Greifman, 509 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Bleemer. If after doing so, it appears that the jury was misled or confused, a new trial must be ordered. Stewart. The appellants defended this action on the theo…
-
Underwriters AT LaCONCORDE v. Airtech Servs., Inc., 468 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…instructions should be considered in their entirety and in terms of the evidence presented. Georgia Southern & F. Ry. Co. v. Hamilton Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 150, 58 So. 838 (1912); Yacker v. Teitch, 330 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Stewart v. Drawdy, 277 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Stacier v. Hall, 130 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). [*390] As to Airtech’s remaining point, we find no merit in the assertion that Underwriters was neither a legal entity nor the real party in interest. See Holyoke Mutual Insuran…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ga. S. & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Hamilton Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 150 (Fla. 1912)
- Staicer v. Hall, 130 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Crosby v. Stubblebine, 142 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)