CA 22 (Fla. 11th Cir.Ct. Apr. 7, 2000). The jury found that each named plaintiffs injuries were legally caused by acts done in furtheranc CA 2010) (suggesting that reliance can be inferred from “pervasive misleading advertising” disseminated to the general public); Frazier v. Philip Morris USA I rial to the issue of [plaintiffs] entitlement to the punitive damage awards will not be confusing or prejudicial.” 102 So.3d at 15; see also Purvis v. Inter-County Tel. & Tel. Co., 173 So.2d 679, 681 (Fla.1965) (“The trial court can by proper instructions to the jury and supervision of the trial process avoid any inferences or implications to be drawn from the previous award of damages ... avoiding prejudice to [defendant].... ”); Griefer v. DiPietro, 625 So.2d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>). Motion for Remittitur of Punitive Damages
holding that retrial did not violate the double jeopardy clause where reversal based on trial error distinguishing reversal for insufficient evidence holding an order of default was not final where it resolved only the question of liability and the case was continued for proof on the issue of damages holding that where the trial court is on notice of error in seating the panel before the jury is sworn and the error is not corrected automatic reversal is required holding that determination only of liability issues is sufficiently final to support issue preclusion although the damages trial remained holding that reversal for a new trial on liability is appropriate only where the error complained of affects only the issues of liability