From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Omer Corp. v. Duke

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 28, 1968
211 So. 2d 48 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

Opinion

No. 67-718.

May 28, 1968.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, William A. Herin, J.

Louis A. Sabatino, Miami, for appellant.

Norman Francis Haft, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.


The appellant, which was the defendant in the trial court, appeals a final judgment and assigns as error the trial court's denial of its motion for a new trial. It affirmatively appears from the record that a procedural irregularity, which was the basis of the motion for a new trial, occurred during the final argument of appellant's counsel before the jury retired. Appellant's counsel learned of it before the jury returned to deliver its verdict, but he did not complain until the adverse verdict had been announced. Under these circumstances we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. See Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company, Fla. 1961, 130 So.2d 580, 587, 588.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Omer Corp. v. Duke

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 28, 1968
211 So. 2d 48 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
Case details for

Omer Corp. v. Duke

Case Details

Full title:OMER CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS REMO'S RESTAURANT, APPELLANT, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: May 28, 1968

Citations

211 So. 2d 48 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

Citing Cases

Sears Roebuck Co. v. Jackson

See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Burdi, 427 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (order granting new…

Rose's Stores, Inc. v. Mason

As a general rule, in order to preserve an alleged ground for a new trial, an objection must be made at the…