Skip to main content

Batista v. Walter & Bernstein

Citations

  • 378 So. 2d 1321

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • failing to move for a continuance due to surprise from change in opponent’s theory precludes claiming prejudice on appeal
  • \greater weight of evidence\ test must be applied to establish existence of oral contract
  • remedy for \surprise\ is continuance, not disregard of newly raised issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hendry, Schwartz and Nesbitt

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.