From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mirsky v. Burger

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 24, 1964
161 So. 2d 896 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

Opinion

No. 63-503.

March 24, 1964.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Joe Eaton, J.

W.F. Parker, Miami, for appellants.

Frates, Fay Floyd and Kermit G. Kindred, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.


The only question preserved for review on this appeal is whether or not the trial judge erred in denying the motion for new trial, which motion was grounded principally upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

The trial judge's orders are met in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Southern Pine Extracts Company v. Bailey, Fla. 1954, 75 So.2d 774; Ward v. Hopkins, Fla. 1955, 81 So.2d 493; Fuote v. Maule, Fla.App. 1962, 143 So.2d 563. It is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: Dowling v. Loftin, Fla. 1954, 72 So.2d 283; Green-Mar Builders, Inc. v. Pearlman, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So.2d 601. The record contains substantial, competent evidence to support the jury's verdict and, therefore, the appellant having failed to demonstrate error, the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Mirsky v. Burger

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 24, 1964
161 So. 2d 896 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)
Case details for

Mirsky v. Burger

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM MIRSKY AND MARY MIRSKY, D/B/A MARLYN'S BEAUTY SALON, APPELLANTS…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 24, 1964

Citations

161 So. 2d 896 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)