MIAMI TRANSIT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
FIDELLA MOWREY, A MARRIED WOMAN, BY HER HUSBAND AND NEXT FRIEND, W. W. MOWREY, AND W. W. MOWREY, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an order granting a new trial, emphasizing the broad discretion afforded to trial judges in such matters and the high bar for appellate reversal.
No, an appellate court should not reverse an order granting a new trial unless there is a clear abuse of judicial discretion or a violation of law.
“There are so many matters occurring in the course and progress of a judicial trial that, in the opinion of the judge who tried the case, may affect' the merits and justice of the cause to the substantial injury of one of the parties, that of necessity a large 'discretion should be accorded to the trial court' in granting a new trial to the end that the administration of justice may be facilitated; and the appellate court will not reverse an •order granting a new trial, unless it clearly appears that a judicial discretion has been abused in its exercise, resulting in injustice, or that the law has been violated.”
This quote establishes the legal standard for appellate review of orders granting new trials, emphasizing the broad discretion of the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a writ of error from an order granting the defendant a new trial. The specific facts leading to the new trial order were not detaile…
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 Appellate Review Of New Trial Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on writ of error from an order of the court below granting defendant in error a new trial.
This court has several times held that:
*841“There are so many matters occurring in the course and progress of a judicial trial that, in the opinion of the judge who tried the case, may affect' the merits and justice of the cause to the substantial injury of one of the parties, that of necessity a large 'discretion should be accorded to the trial court' in granting a new trial to the end that the administration of justice may be facilitated; and the appellate court will not reverse an •order granting a new trial, unless it clearly appears that a judicial discretion has been abused in its exercise, resulting in injustice, or that the law has been violated.”
See Ruff v. G. S. & F. Ry. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 So. 782; Huston v. Green, 91 Fla. 434, 108 So. 846 and cases cited.
It thus appears that it requires a very strong showing ■to authorize the appellate court to reverse an order of a "trial court granting a new trial. Applying the above quoted rule, we cannot say that it clearly appears that the trial •court was guilty of- reversible error in granting a new trial in this ease.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur. Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Hart v. Held, 149 Fla. 33 (Fla. 1941)…ed in this State that ‘a strong showing is required to reverse’ such an order. See Phillips v. Garrett, 109 Fla. 435, 147 South. Rep. 857; Gulf Coast Title Co. v. Walters, 125 Fla. 427, 170 South. Rep. 130; Miami Transit Co. v. Mowrey, 103 Fla. 840, 138 South. Rep. 481. The rule obtains in this State that where an order granting a new trial upon a motion which contains several grounds without stating in the order upon what ground the motion was granted the appellate court will assume it was granted upon the ground…
-
Phillips v. Garrett, 109 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1933)…Fla. 177, 63 Sou. Rep. 702; Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 Sou. Rep. 866; Cheyney v. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324, 81 Sou. Rep. 475. A strong showing is required to reverse an.order granting a new trial. Miami Transit Co. v. Mowrey, 103 Fla. 840, 138 Sou. Rep. 481; Carney v. Stringfellow, supra. [*437] In the Miami Transit Co., case, supra, this Court approved the following language: “There are so many matters occurring in the course and progress of a judicial trial that, in the opinion of the Judge who tried…
-
City of Miami v. Bopp, 117 Fla. 532 (Fla. 1934)…Fla. 131, 58 Sou. 788; Jones v. Jacksonville Elec. Co., 56 Fla. 452, 47 Sou. 1; Zackery v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 62 Fla. 419, 56 So. 686; Anthony Farms Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 69 Fla. 188, 67 So. 913; Miami Transit Co. v. Mowry, 103 Fla. 840, 138 So. 481; Herrin v. Avon Mfg. Co., 87 Fla. 385, 100 So. 174; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Turner, 103 Fla. 300, 137 Sou. 255; Ruff v. Georgia, etc., Ry. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 So. 782; Cheyney v. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324, 81 So. 475; Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fl…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Theola Ruff v. Georgia, 67 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1914)
- Huston v. Green, 91 Fla. 434 (Fla. 1926)