HECTOR TURF & GARDEN, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CALUSA GOLF, INC., APPELLEE; HECTOR TURF & GARDEN, INC., APPELLANT, V. CALUSA GOLF, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Hector Turf & Garden appeals the trial court's order granting a new trial to Calusa Golf on claims between them, while Toro Company appeals the denial of a directed verdict. The court affirms the new trial as to Hector v. Calusa but reverses the new trial order as to Calusa v. Toro, finding the latter lacked valid grounds.
The order granting a new trial between Hector and Calusa is affirmed as no abuse of discretion is shown. Toro's appeal challenging the denial of a directed verdict is denied. The order granting a new trial on Calusa's claim against Toro is reversed because it failed to state valid independent grounds for a new trial on that claim.
[1] An order granting a new trial is affirmed when no abuse of discretion is shown.
[2] A trial court's refusal to direct a verdict in favor of a third-party defendant will be affirmed if no error is shown.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the order granting a new trial upon motion of the defendant Calusa Golf, Inc. as to the claims and counterclaims between the plaintiff Hector Turf & Garden, Inc. and the defendant Calusa is affirmed upon a holding that no abuse of discretion has been shown sufficient to upset this order”
Establishes the standard of review for new trial orders and the affirmance of the new trial between Hector and Calusa
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA dispute arose between Hector Turf & Garden and Calusa Golf regarding claims and counterclaims. Toro Company was also involved as a third-party defen…
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 New Trial Grounds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order granting a new trial upon motion of the defendant Calusa Golf, Inc. [her-einfater “Calusa”] as to the claims and counterclaims between the plaintiff Hector Turf & Garden, Inc. [hereinafter “Hector”] and the defendant Calusa is affirmed upon a holding that no abuse of discretion has been shown sufficient to upset this order. We have carefully examined the plaintiff Hector’s extensive arguments to the contrary, but are not persuaded thereby. See Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530, 533 (Fla.1985); Castlewood Int’l Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1975); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959); Blancher v. Metropolitan Dade County, 436 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
We also find no merit in the third party defendant Toro Company’s [hereinafter “Toro”] appeal, as no error has been shown in the trial court’s refusal to direct a verdict in Toro’s favor on the defendant Calusa’s claim against Toro. See Smith v. Burdine’s, Inc., 144 Fla. 500, 198 So. 223 (1940); R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), pet. for review dismissed, 482 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1986); Fincher Investigative Agency v. Scott, 394 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 402 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1981).
We do find merit, however, in Calusa’s appeal from the trial court’s sua sponte order granting a new trial on Calusa’s claim against Toro, as the order granting same fails to state any valid grounds therefor. It relies solely on grounds stated in its prior order granting a new trial to Calu-sa on Hector’s claim against Calusa, and these grounds present no basis for a new trial on Calusa’s claim against Toro. See Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1980); Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Gould v. National Bank of Florida, 421 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); White v. Martinez, 359 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
The order granting a new trial on the claims and counterclaims between the plaintiff Hector and the defendant Calusa is affirmed; the order granting a new trial on the defendant Calusa’s claim against the third party defendant Toro is reversed; the final judgment entered in favor of the defendant Calusa on Calusa’s claim against the third party defendant Toro is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Baptist Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1980)
- Castlewood Int'l Corp. v. LaFLEUR, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1975)
- Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985)
- Smith v. Smith, 144 Fla. 500 (Fla. 1940)
- R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Gould v. Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 421 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Royal Odell White, Jr. v. Oswaldo Tomas Martinez, 359 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Fincher Investigative Agency, Inc. v. Scott, 394 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)