Legal Opinion

Solomon v. Seymour

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 5, 1997No. 97-840Published

1Per curiam

Upon remand following issuance of this court’s writ of certiorari in Seymour v. Solomon, 683 So.2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for new trial on the remaining grounds asserted therein. The trial court labored under the misconception that Seymour required this action. However, issuance of the mandate in Seymour did not preclude the court from considering plaintiffs’ remaining grounds raised in the new trial motion.

Notwithstanding, a review of the remaining grounds asserted in the new trial motion fail to demonstrate that substantial rights

*1305have been violated…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-FloridaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  2. Tri-Pak MacHinery, Inc. v. HartshornDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  3. Seymour v. SolomonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API