GEORGE DELUCIA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD EGAN AND RUTH EGAN, APPELLEES
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 court affirmed the trial judge's grant of a new trial based on the verdict being against the manifest weight of the evidence, applying the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review.
A trial judge's grant of a new trial motion based on a verdict being against the manifest weight of the evidence will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
[1] A trial court's discretionary decision to grant a new trial because the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion and wil…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves an appeal of a trial court's order granting a new trial because the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.…
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 Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
As Justice Grimes stated in Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1988):
In the oft-cited case of Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959), this Court set forth the standard of review for an order which grants a new trial because the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
When the judge, who must be presumed to have drawn on his talents, his knowledge and his experience to keep the search for the truth in a proper channel, concludes that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, it is his duty to grant a new trial, and he should always do that if the jury has been deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record, Martin v. Stone [Fla.1951, 51 So. 2d 33], supra, Turner v. Frey [Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 721], supra, Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., Fla. 86 So. 2d 792; Florida Publishing Co. v. Copeland, Fla. , 89 So. 2d 18.
Inasmuch as such motions are granted in the exercise of a sound, broad discretion the ruling should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that it has been abused. Dent v. Margaret Ann Super Markets, Fla. 52 So. 2d 130; Geffrey v. Langston Const. Co., Fla. , 58 So. 2d 698; Pyms v. Meranda [Fla. , 98 So. 2d 341], supra. Id. at 673.
AFFIRMED.
SCHEB, A.C.J., LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Pyms v. Meranda, 98 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1957)
- Martin v. Stone, 51 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1951)
- Geffrey v. Langston Const. Co., 58 So.2d 698 (Fla. 1952)
- THE FLA. BAR RE AMENDMENT TO RULES REGULATING THE FLA. BAR (RULE 1-4.3, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988)
- Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988)
- Fla. Publ'g Co. v. Copeland, 89 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1956)
- Turner v. Frey, 81 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1955)
- Dent v. Margaret Ann Super Mkts., 52 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1951)
- Myers v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 86 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1956)