HERBERT CONNOLLY, APPELLANT,
v.
ORFILIO SANCHEZ AND MERCEDES SANCHEZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1985-04-30
No. 84-2144
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
469 So. 2d 835 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1985) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment below is affirmed on the ground that it does not appear that any of the evidentiary rulings complained of, even if erroneous, was harmful or prejudicial. Sec. 59.041, Fla.Stat. (1981).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Michelin Tire Corp. v. Lou Hazel Milbrook, 799 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
    …d. See Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)(appel-lant’s complaint of error would not be heard where trial court had acted in accordance with counsel’s stipulation); see also Goodman v. Aero Enterprises, a Div. of ARA Services, 469 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). After the jury returned it, verdict, among the claims of error raised in Michelin’s motion for new trial was the company’s argument that the destruction of the records had become a feature of the trial, thus denying the company…
  • DG Auto Grp. Exp., Inc. v. Mendez (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw