Choose a Topic

View Our Case Results
Kelley/Uustal Practice Areas

Janine Aris, et al. v. Seville C. Applebaum, Case No. 3D14-2050 (3rd DCA)

In Aris, the Third District affirmed a final judgment entered below and the trial court's denial of a post-trial motion for new trial. The Third District noted that the appellant have objected to clearly improper questioning by the appellee's counsel. The trial court sustained the objection, struck the question from the record and instructed the jury to disregard the question. The appellant's counsel did not request any additional curative instructions and did not move for a mistrial.

The Third District noted that where "a contemporaneous objection to attorney misconduct is sustained and a curative instruction is given to the jury, a party who believes the error has not been cured by the court's actions must also contemporaneously move for a mistrial in order to preserve the issue for a trial court's later consideration of a motion for new trial." The only exception to this preservation requirement is where the error complained of was fundamental. Finding that the objected-to question did not constitute fundamental error, the Third District ruled that the appellant's failure to contemporaneously move for a mistrial was fatal, and the trial court properly denied the post-verdict motion for new trial.

Categories:

Recognized as One of the Nation's Best Law Firms

Don't just take our word for it. See it for yourself.

Client Reviews & Testimonials
  • AV Peer Review Rated
  • Florida Super Lawyers
  • South Florida Top Rated Lawyers
  • Best Law Firms
  • The Best Lawyers in America
  • The National Trial Lawyers - Top 100 Trial Lawyers
  • South Florida Business Journal - 2017  Best Places to Work
  • Sun Sentinel - 2017 Top Work Places
© 2014 All Rights Reserved The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.