R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY AND LIGGETT GROUP, L.L.C., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
FINNA CLAY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JANIE MAE CLAY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY AND LIGGETT GROUP, L.L.C., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
FINNA CLAY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JANIE MAE CLAY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
84 So. 3d 1069
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2012)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
AFFIRMED. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
DAVIS, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…, Inc. v. J.R. Sailing, Inc., 926 So. 2d 404, 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). Instances of attorney misconduct during trial may also warrant the grant of a new trial. Sullivan v. Kanarek, 79 So. 3d 900, 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); see, e.g., Irizarry v. Moore, 84 So. 3d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). “If the issue of an opponent’s improper argument [or conduct] has been properly preserved by objection and motion for mistrial, the trial court should grant a new trial if the argument was ‘so highly prejudicial and inflam…
-
Adams v. Barkman, 114 So. 3d 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants continue to make improper arguments and violate orders of the court. In the last two years, this court has admonished other lawyers regarding such conduct on at least three occasions. See Irizarry v. Moore, 84 So. 3d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Jackson v. Pena, 58 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Samuels v. Torres, 29 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). While it is suggested that these cases should be tried on the merits and not attorney shenanigans, the threat of an admon…
-
TT OF Indian River, Inc. v. Fortson, 232 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…o. 2d 1171, 1172-73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (citing Barton v. Miami Transit Co., 42 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1949))). Moreover, as this court has recognized, it is improper to refer to “guilt” or “innocence” at a civil trial on negligence. See Irizarry v. Moore, 84 So. 3d 1069, 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). We cannot agree with Appellee that this error was harmless. The great majority of Appellee’s direct examination of the corporate representative was not only entirely irrelevant to damages, but was also formulated with the…
Authorities Cited
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Matilde C. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)