ARLEN HOUSE EAST, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CARLOS LOWENSTERN AND BERTHA LOWENSTERN, HIS WIFE, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 plaintiffs in breach of contract action; trial court did not commit reversible error in evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
The trial court did not commit reversible error in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or other trial procedures in a breach of contract case.
Arlen House East, Inc. was sued by the Lowensterns and others for breach of contract and sought damages and declaratory judgment. Defendant denied the…
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 Evidentiary Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Arlen House East, Inc., defendant and counter-plaintiff below, from an adverse judgment rendered against it, following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs’ cause of action was for damages and a declaratory judgment arising out of an alleged breach of contract by the defendant.
Defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and interposed a counterclaim charging the plaintiffs with breach of contract and bad faith.
Appellant contends that the judgment should be reversed. The grounds urged for reversal are that the court erred (1) in denying defendant the right to assemble evidence for use at trial; (2) in improperly excluding substantial competent material evidence offered by it on issues for determination; (3) in permitting an attorney for the plaintiffs to testify, over defendant’s objections, that defendant had breached the contract; (4) in failing to rule on the question of liquidated damages, and (5) in giving erroneous instructions to the jury.
All of the grounds relied upon for reversal have been carefully considered in the light of the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel and, we have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The record discloses that the case was fully and fairly tried; that the verdict and judgment are supported by the evidence; and that the rulings of the trial court challenged by defendant did not, on the record and under the law, constitute harmful error. Warning Safety Lights, Inc. v. Gallor, 346 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Therefore the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norberto Quito v. Compania de Vapores Ocean Breeze S.A., 743 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…041, Fla. Stat. (1995); Stecher v. Pomeroy, 253 So. 2d 421, 422 (Fla.1971); Chrysler v. Department of Prof'l Reg., 627 So. 2d 31, 34-35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Scurry v. State, 490 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Arlen House E., Inc. v. Lowenstern, 364 So. 2d 87, 88 [*1179] (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). We therefore affirm the judgment under review. Affirmed. GREEN and SORONDO, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Indian River Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sherrill White, 346 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)