MARY E. BOGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, ET AL., APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
A reading of the order granting a new trial from whence this appeal emanates reveals that one of the alternative bases recited by the trial court for granting a new trial was that the verdict was contrary to the evidence as it related to percentages of negligence. Appellant has made no attempt in her briefs to demonstrate that the court’s said stated alternative ground was legally or factually erroneous. It is axiomatic that when an order of the trial court purports to be based upon several alternative grounds it will not be disturbed on appeal if one of the grounds is sufficient for the action taken even though another recited alternative ground is erroneous. Accordingly, the order here appealed is
AFFIRMED.
BOYER, C. J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. v. John H. LeBARON, D.D.S., 443 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…r review of non-final orders of hearing officers. Research has not revealed any Florida cases discussing this precise issue.3 However, in Bureau of Community Medical Facilities Planning of Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Samson, 341 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), this court held that the hearing officer designated to conduct a proceeding on an application for certificate of need to construct a hospital facility was not an “agency” for purposes of rendering final agency action on the appl…
-
Rowell v. State, 700 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ol Board of Sarasota County, 338 So. 2d 890, 892-93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). A final agency action is subject to direct review in a district court. See § 120.68, Fla. Stat.; Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(C); Bureau of Community Medical Facilities v. Samson, 341 So. 2d 1071, 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The same is true of a quasi-judicial agency decision. See Von Stephens, 338 So. 2d at 893. Relief from an order which is not quasi-judicial is by an original proceeding in the trial court. See id. According to section 120…
-
Samson v. Bureau OF Cmty. Med. Facilities Planning OF Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 363 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…e review within these time limitations will be constured [sic] as approval of the proposed capital expenditure.” The Bureau subsequently repealed this rule, effective January 1, 1977. Rule 101-1.03. . Bureau of Community Med. Fac., Etc. v. Samson, 341 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.App. 1977), wherein this Court held that the hearing officer designated in the matter was not an “agency” for purposes of rendering final agency action and, thus, his order was not subject to judicial review. . The Agreement which was signed b…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence