Case ID: so2d_626/html/0286-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raul BOLUFE, et al., Appellants, v. Hiraldo Lazaro RAMIREZ etc., et al., Appellees.
    No. 92-639.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Nov. 2, 1993.
    
      Conrad, Scherer, James & Jenne and Linda R. Spaulding, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
    Friedman & Friedman and John S. Selig-man, Coral Gables, for appellees.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and FERGUSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the trial court properly granted a new trial because of the golden rule arguments made by defense counsel below. Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Miku v. Olmen, 193 So.2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 232 (Fla.1967).

There is no merit in the point raised on cross appeal. See § 627.7262, Fla.Stat. (1991) (renumbered § 627.4136, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1992)),

Affirmed.