MIAMI ATHLETIC CLUB, INC., A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, AND HERMAN GREENFELD, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT JOSEPH MORENCY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a jury verdict against the defendants, finding no merit in their challenges to the court's jurisdiction, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the judge's admonition to the jury, especially since no objection was raised to the latter.
1. Yes, there was a good-faith claim sufficient for jurisdiction. 2. Yes, the evidence was sufficient. 3. No, the defendants are not in a position to urge error because they failed to object.
“Our examination of the record convinces us that there was a good-faith claim of an amount sufficient to bring the cause within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and that there was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury.”
Establishes the court's findings on the jurisdiction and sufficiency of evidence points.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants suffered an adverse jury verdict and final judgment. They appealed, raising three points: the court's jurisdiction based on the amount …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Error By Failure To Object cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants suffered an adverse verdict at the hands of the jury and final judgment was entered thereon. Upon this appeal, they present three points — the first attacks the jurisdiction of the court upon the basis of the amount involved; the second, the sufficiency of the evidence; and the third urges that the court erred by interrupting the jury’s deliberations with the admonition that they must shortly return a verdict or be discharged.
Our examination of the record convinces us that there was a good-faith claim of an amount sufficient to bring the cause within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and that there was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury.
Upon the third point, we find that the appellant is not in a position to urge error upon appeal inasmuch as he failed to enter objection, either at the time of the occurrence or by motion for new trial. Cf., Upchurch v. Mizell, 50 Fla. 456, 40 So. 29; Baxley v. State, 72 Fla. 228, 72 So. 677; Watkins v. Riverside Military Academy, 156 Fla. 398, 23 So.2d 386; Marsh v. Sarasota County, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 312.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baxley v. State, 72 Fla. 228 (Fla. 1916)
- Upchurch v. Jackson Mizell and William Mizell, 50 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1905)
- Marsh v. Sarasota Cnty., 97 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Watkins v. Riverside Mil. Acad., 156 Fla. 398 (Fla. 1945)