VALLEY CAR WASH, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
163RD STREET SHOPPING CENTER, A DIVISION OF AMTERRE DEVELOPMENT, INC., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Promissory Note Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants were sued as the maker and guarantor of a promissory note. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff-appellee and against the appellants. On this appeal, the basic contention is that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the appellants, presented an issue for the jury. Appellants have presented eight points, four of which are directed to the question of whether there was an issue for the court to decide. We concur with the trial court that the evidence was susceptible to no other reasonable interpretation except that the corporate appellant received, but has not repaid, the money represented by the note. The personal appellants do not contend that they did not guarantee the loan.
Appellants’ remaining points are directed to other rulings made by the trial court during the trial of the cause. We have examined each of these and find that no error has been demonstrated. There being no real legal issue presented in the cause, the final judgment based upon the directed verdict is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duke v. State, 444 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…In the absence of evidence indicating insanity at the time of sentencing, the trial judge is not required to order such an examination. Cabe v. State, 408 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), cert. denied, 435 [*495] So. 2d 821 (Fla.1983); Gray v. State, 310 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Having found no abuse of discretion, we conclude the trial court properly denied appellant’s request for further psychiatric examination. Finally, appellant contends, and correctly, that the trial court erred in imposing costs i…
-
Cabe v. State, 408 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…ant’s position that there was any evidence of insanity. On this record, we conclude that the court’s refusal to direct such an evaluation was not error because no evidence was offered to suggest insanity at the time of sentencing. See Gray v. State, 310 So. 2d 320, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Appellant’s final point requires reversal of the conviction and a remand of the case for new trial. He asserts that it was reversible error for the court to refuse his requested instruction that attempted false imprisonment…
-
Courtney v. State, 358 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…this incident. See, e. g., Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413 [*1109] (Fla.1975); Dunn v. State, 341 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Abbott v. State, 334 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Bullard v. State, 324 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Gray v. State, 310 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and Wilcox v. State, 299 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Accordingly, appellant’s first point on appeal is without merit. Appellant, in his second point on appeal, attacks the propriety of the trial court’s admitting into evidence…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence