Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing the prejudicial effect of statements that “inflame the minds and passions of the jurors” (quoting Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130, 134 (Fla. 1985))
• recognizing the prejudicial effect of statements that “inflame the minds and passions of the jurors” (quoting Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130, 134 (Fla. 1985))
• observing that the case law and the rules of professional conduct are “in place to ensure that juries render verdicts based on record evidence and applicable law, not based on impermissible matters interjected by counsel during closing argument.”
• explaining that to establish fundamental error, the complained-of issue must be improper, harmful, incurable, and the party “must also establish that the argument so damaged the fairness of the trial that the public’s interest in our system of justice requires a new trial”
• \[T]he appellate court must . . . apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing either the trial court's grant or denial of a new trial based on the unobjected-to closing argument.\
• if a claim is not properly preserved for review, the issue can only be reviewed for fundamental error, which requires the movant to demonstrate: 1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).