Opinion

Herbello v. Perez

754 So. 2d 840 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 5, 2000

Full text

Herbello v. Perez

754 So.2d 840 (2000) Jorge Luis HERBELLO, Appellant, v. Humberto PEREZ, Appellee. No. 3D99-666. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. April 5, 2000. Oscar Syger, Miami, for appellant. Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary B. Wilder, Fort Lauderdale; Timothy Harrington and Stephen K. Katz, Miami, for appellee. Before JORGENSON, GODERICH, and RAMIREZ, JJ. PER CURIAM. After carefully reviewing the record, we find that the alleged erroneous evidentiary ruling did not affect the outcome of the trial. Therefore, the error, if any, was harmless. § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1999); Katos v. Cushing, 601 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(holding that in a civil case the "test for harmful error is whether, but for such error, a different result may have been reached."). Affirmed.

Parentheticals

finding that erroneous evidentiary rulings did not affect outcome of trial; therefore, errors were harmless
Vickers v. Thomas
"After carefully reviewing the record, we find that the alleged erroneous evidentiary ruling did not affect the outcome of the trial. Therefore, the error, if any, was harmless."
MARLYN TRACEY v. WELLS FARGO BANK N. A.
"After carefully reviewing the record, we find that the alleged erroneous evidentiary ruling did not affect the outcome of the trial. Therefore, the error, if any, was harmless." (first citing § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1999
KENNETH ALAN PEARSON v. SHAY RAE PEARSON