MAX BAUER MEAT PACKER, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
S-M VACU-FREEZE CORP., ETC., 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 the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support its findings.
Plaintiff sued for goods sold and delivered. Defendant denied liability and counterclaimed for breach of contract. The trial court entered judgment fo…
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 Goods Sold And Delivered cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff sued defendant for goods sold and delivered to the defendant. The defendant denied liability and counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract. In a non-jury trial the court entered judgment against the plaintiff on its claim and in favor of the defendant on its counterclaim.
Plaintiff seeks reversal of the judgment on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment.
The issues which were in dispute were resolved in favor of the defendant-counter-claimant by the trial judge, whose duty it was to reconcile conflicts and evaluate testimony, to judge the credibility of the witnesses and determine the reasonableness and weight of the evidence presented.
Those findings of the trial court then come to this court clothed with the presumption of correctness and should not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. The appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court’s holding is clearly erroneous.
It has not been made to appear that the proof is insufficient to support the findings and judgment of the trial court. From our study of the record we are satisfied that there is sufficient competent evidence to support the judgment appealed. Marx v. Goldfinger, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 380.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cabrera v. Evans, 322 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…wide discretion in the treatment of discovery problems and that its rulings will not • ordinarily be disturbed by an appellate court. See Charles Sales [*560] Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 551; Cristol v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App. 1971, 245 So. 2d 132. Nevertheless, there are limits to the trial court’s discretion in his orders as to discovery procedure. See Orlowitz v. Orlowitz, Fla.1967, 199 So. 2d 97; and Carson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1965, 173 So. 2d 743. In Dade County v. Jordan…
Authorities Cited
- Marx v. Goldfinger, 187 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)