BILL JENNINGS, D/B/A BILL JENNINGS LADDER COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LAWRENCE STEWART, 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 the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
Plaintiff sued defendant in a product liability case, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff after an extended trial. The defendant appeale…
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 Preservation Of Error For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Bill Jennings Ladder Company, was sued by the appellee in a product liability case. After an extended trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. This appeal is from the judgment entered pursuant to that verdict. Appellant has presented four points, two of which raise questions of the sufficiency of the evidence. Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The remaining two points claim procedural errors during a four-day trial. The second point, which is directed to the receipt of expert testimony, does not present reversible error under the rule stated in Lineberger v. Domino Canning Co., Fla. 1953, 68 So. 2d 357, which is that an appellate court will not consider grounds or objections to testimony which were not raised in the trial court.
Appellant’s remaining point claims that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial. This point does not present error on this record. See State ex rel. Pryor v. Smith, Fla.App.1970, 239 So. 2d 85. Compare Pessolano v. State, Fla. App.1964, 161 So. 2d 237.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tabasky v. Dreyfuss, 350 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ty of evidence which are raised for the first time on appeal. See Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 So. 656 (1903); Lineberger v. Domino Canning Co., 68 So. 2d 357 (1953); Chaudoin v. State, 118 So. 2d 569 (Fla.2d DCA 1960); Jennings v. Stewart, 308 So. 2d 611 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). The record clearly reflects that plaintiff’s counsel objected to the admissibility of the memorandum solely on the ground it was not introduced into evidence at the time of the Webster deposition, and [*522] the objection was prop…
-
Maddry v. State, 585 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…idence which are raised for the first time on appeal. See Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 So. 656 (1903); Lineberger v. Domino Canning Co., 68 So. 2d 357 (1953); [*361] Chaudoin v. State, 118 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Jennings v. Stewart, 308 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and Tabasky v. Dreyfuss, 350 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Here, the record clearly reflects that appellant’s only arguments below against the admissibility of the challenged evidence are arguments going to what he must have bel…
-
M.S. v. State, 584 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…A), review denied, 536 So. 2d 243 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069, 109 S.Ct. 1349, 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989). Defendant’s argument on appeal that that evidence was not shown to be competent was not preserved for appeal. See Jennings v. Stewart, 308 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). [*37] We also disagree with defendant’s contention that he was denied the right to present a defense and the right to counsel when the trial court found him guilty following the close of the state’s case immediately after denying…
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
- Lineberger v. Domino Canning Co., Inc., 68 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1953)
- State v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Pessolano v. State, 161 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)