Case Name: Raul BOLUFE, et al., Appellants, v. Hiraldo Lazaro RAMIREZ etc., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-11-02
Citations: 626 So. 2d 286
Docket Number: No. 92-639
Parties: Raul BOLUFE, et al., Appellants, v. Hiraldo Lazaro RAMIREZ etc., et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 626
Pages: 286–287

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.