Case Title: Sawczak v. Goldenberg

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC93-353

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2001-01-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC93353
____________
SHIRLEY SAWCZAK,
Petitioner,
vs.
ALAN GOLDENBERG, et al.,
Respondents.
[January 4, 2001]
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Sawczak v. Goldenberg, 710 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA
1998), which has been presented to the Court on the basis of express and direct
conflict with multiple cases which have addressed and decided the issue of whether
unobjected to, improper comments made during closing argument rise to a level of
seriousness as to warrant the granting of a new trial to the complaining party.    We
have jurisdiction.  See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.  We have recently addressed
the primary issue presented for conflict in the instant case in Murphy v.
-2-
International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000), and articulated
the applicable law.  Therefore, we remand the cause to the district court for
reconsideration in light of our opinion in Murphy.  We decline to address other
collateral issues.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE,
JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Direct Conflict
Fourth District - Case No. 4D96-2253 
(Broward County)
Herman J. Russomanno and Robert J. Borrello of Russomanno & Borrello, P.A.,
Miami, Florida,
for Petitioner
Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford,
P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Esther E. Galicia of George, Hartz, Lundeen, Flagg
& Fulmer, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Clark J. Cochran, Jr. and Hal B. Anderson
of Billing, Cochran, Heath, Lyles & Mauro, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
for Respondents