NAPLES FRUIT & VEGETABLE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID C. TOWNSEND, 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 appellate court held that the trial court's ruling was supported by substantial competent evidence and should not be disturbed.
This was the second appeal after a new trial was ordered. The parties stipulated to use the same testimony from the prior trial, and the trial court a…
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
This is appellant’s/defendant’s second appeal, following the second trial of this cause, which was held pursuant to our remand for a new trial (Naples Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Townsend, Fla.App.2d, 1973, 276 So. 2d 222, cert. den. Fla. 1973, 281 So. 2d 214). In the prior trial, final judgment was entered in favor of appellee/plaintiff, awarding him damages in the amount of $9,915.56. On remand, the parties stipulated to rely on the same testimony that had been offered by them in the prior trial. In due course, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of appellee and against the appellant in the amount of $9,919.56.
The material facts are set out in our prior opinion and we see no reason to recite them here. We have heard oral argument, reviewed the record and given full consideration to the applicable law set out in the briefs filed by the parties and hold that there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the ruling of the trial court. It should be left undisturbed.
We, therefore, overrule our decision rendered in the prior appeal. In view of the fact that the trial court’s ruling in said case was neither contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, nor clearly erroneous, it was inappropriate for this court to have substituted its judgment for the judgment of the trial court. Affirmed.
McNULTY, C. j., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Naples Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Townsend, 276 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Hough v. Stembridge, 281 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1973)
- Hazele Miller et ux. v. Head, 281 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1973)