ROBERT CECIL WILSON, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE (STATE)
ROBERT CECIL WILSON, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE (STATE)
327 So. 2d 99
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1976)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Upon considering the briefs and the record, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
BOYER, C. J., and MILLS and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Itt Hartford Ins. Co. of the Se. v. Stiles Jerry Owens and Jean A. Owens, 816 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2002)…nda Corp., 352 So. 2d 1221, 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (“A trial court is not permitted to reduce the verdict of a jury by ordering a remittitur without permitting the plaintiffs to have the option of a new trial.”); Stuart v. Cather Industries, Inc., 327 So. 2d 99, 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (vacating and setting aside order of remit-titur which failed to afford the plaintiff the alternative of a new trial, and remanding to the trial court “with directions to allow the plaintiff to accept the provisions of that…
-
Olivas v. Peterson, 969 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (holding that the trial court erred by not affording the option of accepting a remittitur or having a new trial on damages, and remanding for the trial court to enter an order giving the option); Stuart v. Cather Indus., Inc., 327 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (a trial judge is not permitted to reduce the verdict of a jury by ordering a remittitur, without permitting the plaintiff to have the option of a new trial). Because Hertz and Olivas did not, and do not, agree to the amount of…