Legal Opinion · Concurrence

IDY Corp. v. Engels

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 21, 1984No. 83-329Published

1ConcurrenceDaniel S. Pearson, Judge

I think the stated reason for affirmance should be that a party, such as the appellant here, which expressly declines to move for a mistrial and asks only for curative instructions and admonitions cannot be heard to complain of the trial court’s refusal to grant it a new trial on the asserted ground that it was prejudiced by improper questions, remarks and conduct of opposing trial counsel. Sears Roebuck & Company v. Jackson, 433 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Earl Hollis, Inc. v. Fraser Mortgage Company, 403 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). See Walt Disney World Co. v. Althouse, 427 So.2d…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. JacksonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  2. Walt Disney World Co. v. AlthouseDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  3. Earl Hollis, Inc. v. Fraser Mortgage Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API