Consumer law — Deceptive and unfair trade practices — Civil procedure — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s post-trial motion to set aside verdict on ground that there was no evidence that defendant had engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce where that ground was not raised in defendant’s prior motion for directed verdict — Trial court also erred in granting defendant’s alternative motion for new trial — Verdict was not contrary to manifest weight of evidence — Because defendant failed to object to allegedly inconsistent verdicts on FDUTPA and negligence counts before jury was discharged, any such challenge was waived
44 Fla. L. Weekly D2385a
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index