FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES A. KIKIS, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ford Motor Company petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to review a district court decision that reinstated a jury verdict for Kikis in a products liability case. The Supreme Court addressed two issues: whether an appellate court must explicitly identify conflicting decisions to create an "express" conflict under the Court's constitutional jurisdiction, and the proper standard for reviewing a trial court's grant of a new trial motion.
An explicit identification of conflicting decisions is not necessary to create an 'express' conflict; discussion of applicable legal principles in the district court's opinion is sufficient. The district court failed to apply the correct abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the trial court's grant of a new trial and must reconsider that alternative ground on remand.
[1] A district court's opinion need not explicitly identify conflicting decisions to create an express conflict for purposes of constitutional jurisdiction.
[2] A district court of appeal reviewing a trial court's order granting a motion for a new trial must determine whether the trial court abused its broad discretion.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is not necessary that a district court explicitly identify conflicting district court or supreme court decisions in its opinion in order to create an "express" conflict under section 3(b)(3).”
Establishes that express conflict jurisdiction does not require explicit citation to conflicting precedent; discussion of legal principles suffices.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial court vacated a jury verdict for Kikis and entered a directed verdict for Ford Motor Company. Alternatively, the trial court granted Ford's mo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
ENGLAND, Justice.
This case presents one issue which we have never addressed and another issue which we have never stopped addressing. The first requires clarification of the “expressly” requirement in this Court’s constitutional jurisdiction to resolve conflicting appellate decisions. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The second revisits the role of the districts courts of appeal when reviewing a trial judge’s order granting a motion for a new trial.
On Ford’s motion, the trial court vacated a jury verdict for Kikis, directed a verdict for Ford, and entered judgment on the verdict. The court alternatively granted Ford’s motion for a new trial1 on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that the court had erred in refusing to give an instruction requested by Ford. On appeal, the district court reversed the trial court’s judgment, directing that the jury verdict be reinstated and judgment enter for Kikis. Kikis v. Ford Motor Co., 386 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Ford asks us to review that decision on the basis of an express and direct conflict with prior appellate decisions.
The first issue — the meaning of the expressly requirement — arises from the fact that the district court below did not identify a direct conflict of its decision with any other Florida appellate decisions. The court’s opinion discusses, however, the basis upon which it reversed the trial court’s entry of a directed verdict for Ford. This discussion, of the legal principles which the court applied supplies a sufficient basis for a petition for conflict review. It is not necessary that a district court explicitly identify conflicting district court or supreme court decisions in its opinion in order to create an “express” conflict under section 3(b)(3).2
The second issue in this proceeding is a product of the district court’s ambiguous reasoning. The court reversed the trial court on the grounds that “there was evidence in the record to support the jury verdict and no reversible trial error occurred warranting either a judgment for the defendant or a new trial.” 3 Its subsequent analysis addresses whether there was evidence in the record to support the jury verdict. This inquiry is relevant to review of the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict, but not to the alternative grant of a new trial. We have stated and restated the appropriate standard for district courts on review of a trial court’s motion granting a new trial. The test is whether the trial court abused its “broad discretion.” If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then there is no abuse of discretion. See Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1980); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959); Rivera v. White, 386 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The district court’s apparent failure to apply this standard requires that we quash the decision and remand this cause solely for a reexamination of the trial court’s alternative grant of a new trial.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . The order provided that “should the foregoing Final Judgment be reversed by the Appellate Court, the Defendant’s Motion for New Trial ... is ... granted .... ”
. See England, Hunter & Williams, Constitutional Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida: 1980 Reform, 32 U. Fla. L. Rev. 147, 188-89 (1980).
.Kikis v. Ford Motor Co., 386 So. 2d at 306-07 (footnote omitted and emphasis added).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (56 total)
-
White Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1984)…etition for conflict review. It is not necessary that a district court explicitly identify conflicting district court or supreme court decisions in its opinion in order to create an “express” conflict under section 3(b)(3). Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341, 1342 (Fla.1981). (Emphasis supplied.) The conflict between the decisions of two district courts must appear within the four corners of each opinion. No longer are we permitted to go back into the record proper in order to make this determination.…
-
State v. Spaziano, 692 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1997)…4, 370 (Fla.1976). This rule is neither new nor unusual. It has been repeatedly applied and fully explained in our civil cases. See generally Poole v. Veterans Auto [*178] Sales & Leasing Co., 668 So. 2d 189, 191 (Fla.1996); Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341, 1342 (Fla.1981); Castlewood Int’l Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So. 2d 520, 522 (Fla.1975).2 When we examine the lower court’s determination for an abuse of discretion, we find none. The lower court conducted an extremely thorough evidentiary hearing. Twe…
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Robinson, 472 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1985)…on a motion for new trial at the same time it grants a defendant’s motion for directed verdict in the event that the appellate court reverses the directed verdict. This procedure has been implicitly approved by this Court in Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341, 1342 (Fla.1981). See also Reams v. Vaughn, 435 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Navarro v. City of Miami, 402 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We must now address the propriety of the district court’s reversal of the order granting remittitur or new…
Previewing 3 of 56 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Baptist Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1980)
- Rivera v. White, 386 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Kikis v. Ford Motor Co., 386 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)