Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2003

Mercury Cas. Co. v. Flores

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided December 17, 2003 · Schwartz, C.J., Levy and Shevin

870 So. 2d 127; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19198; 2003 WL 22956421 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Mercury Cas. Co. v. Flores (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
Burgess Transportation, Inc. v. Arostegui (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

870 So.2d 127 (2003)

MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
Clara FLORES, Appellee.

No. 3D03-453.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 17, 2003.Rehearing Denied April 16, 2004.

*128 Cooney, Mattson, Lance, Blackburn, Richards & O'Connor and Warren B. Kwavnick, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Lopez & Best and Virginia M. Best, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., LEVY and SHEVIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment finding that the alleged error, if any, in the admission of the evidence was entirely harmless. See Soler v. Kukula, 297 So.2d 600, 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Hall v. Haldane, 268 So.2d 403, 404-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

Cases that cite this one

Opinion

MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant,v.Clara FLORES, Appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., LEVY and SHEVIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
Clara FLORES, Appellee.