Budnick v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Opinion of the CourtPolen, J.
We affirm the final judgment because we find that the appellant’s general objec*939tion to bifurcation was not sufficient to preserve the perceived error that certain evidence should be allowed into evidence during Phase I of the proceedings. See Noel v. Broward Gen. Med. Ctr., 725 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Corona v. State, 64 So.3d 1232 (Fla.2011); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982); Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493 (Fla.1992).
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, J., and BONAVITA, AUGUST, Associate Judge, concur.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Steinhorst v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1982
- Rodriguez v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
- Corona v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2011
- Noel ex rel. Noel v. Broward General Medical CenterDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999