DAON CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
RUTH BLANKENSTEIN, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1984-01-31
Nos. 83-105, 83-182
Before HENDRY, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
444 So. 2d 85 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1984) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM,

PER CURIAM,

The nature and effect of the order granting the plaintiff’s motion for mistrial was to grant a new trial. See A & P Bakery & Equipment Co. v. H. Hexter & Son, Inc., 149 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). The trial court’s order did not specify the grounds upon which the new trial was granted, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(f). We therefore relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for the entry of an order stating the reasons for granting the new trial. See Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Rodewald v. Lawton, 394 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Remanded for further proceedings.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Casines v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
    …ourt for entry of an order specifying the grounds for granting the new trial”); Big Lots Stores, Inc. v. Diaz, 18 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brooks, 657 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Daon Corp. v. Blankenstein, 444 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw