W. LOUIS KEITH, APPELLANT,
v.
AMREP CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, 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.
Affirmed judgment for defendant in malicious interference with business claim, finding jury verdict supported by sufficient evidence and no trial court error.
A jury verdict finding insufficient evidence of malicious interference with business will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear showing of trial court error or demonstrably erroneous conclusions.
[1] On appeal from a jury verdict, the appellate court will not disturb the jury's findings of fact or credibility determinations absent a clear showing of trial court error…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages against defendant for alleged malicious interference with plaintiff's business.…
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
JOHNSON, Judge.
The plaintiff below seeks reversal of a final judgment, rendered pursuant to jury verdict, in favor of defendant-ap-pellee in a suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages for appellee’s alleged malicious interference with appellant’s business.
We have heard oral argument in this cause and have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the parties. The principle question pre served on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict in favor of appellee and the judgment entered thereon. In our review of the record, we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The facts of this case constituted jury questions and were resolved by the jury adversely to appellant. It is not the province of this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of facts. The credibility of the testimony and the weight of the evidence are peculiarly jury questions and the findings of the jury 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. The rulings of the trial court as to the remaining issues raised in this appeal likewise have a sufficient basis in the record. Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marasa v. State, 394 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…h evidence and consider witness testimony so we are most cautious in our review of factual matters. Songer v. State, 322 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1975), vacated on other grounds 430 U.S. 952, 97 S.Ct. 1594, 51 L.Ed.2d 801 (1977); Keith v. Amrep Corporation, 312 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). See Vanzant v. Davies, 215 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), cert. den., 225 So. 2d 529 (1969). However, there is a legal difference between the degrees of homicide and if the facts do not support a conviction it is our duty to ei…
-
Bermil Corp. v. Sawyer, 353 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…he jury on disputed questions of fact. Fountainhead Motel, Inc. v. Massey, 336 So. 2d 397 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). In addition, a judgment of the trial court reaches an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, Keith v. Amrep Corporation, 312 So. 2d 234 (Fla.lst DCA 1975), and will not be disturbed as long as there is any competent substantial evidence which can sustain the jury’s verdict. South Carolina Insurance Company v. Wolf, 331 So. 2d 337 (Fla.lst DCA 1976). Finally, it must be stated that a…
-
Ridenour v. Sharek, 388 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…cal testimony as to whether or not Parkinson’s disease could be caused by a trauma such as Ridenour suffered in the rear-end collision. The jury found for the appellees on that issue, and we cannot disturb their findings. Keith v. Amrep Corporation, 312 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). However, both medical witnesses testified that it was reasonably necessary and proper in order to determine that the tremor was not related to the accident, to refer Riden-our to the specialist, and have him hospitalized for a…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence