ITALIA DIXON
v.
WORLD FIBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.
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.
Italia Dixon appealed a trial court's decision regarding a new trial motion and additur award in a motor vehicle damages action. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, applying the abuse of discretion standard and finding no clear abuse.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Trial court rulings on motions for new trial are reviewed for abuse of discretion and given great deference on appeal. An additur award is reversed only where there is a clear abuse of discretion, and only where the evidence is not conflicting and the jury could not have reached its verdict in a manner consistent with the evidence.
“Trial court rulings on motions for new trial are given great deference on appeal.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review applied to new trial decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a motor vehicle operation damages action. The trial court considered a motion for new trial and made an additur award. The appeal a…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Pla v. Rierson, 49 Fla.
L. Weekly D1045 at *2 (Fla. 3d DCA May 15, 2024) (“To the extent we review the new trial order, a trial court's decision to grant or deny a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and ‘[t]rial court rulings on motions for new trial are given great deference on appeal.’”) (quoting Pena v. Vectour of Fla., Inc., 30 So. 3d 691, 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)).
See also Ferrer v. La Serna, 179 So. 3d 523, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“A trial court’s additur award is reversed only where there has been a clear abuse of discretion.”); Pogue v. Garib, 254 So. 3d 503, 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“The trial court may not award an additur ‘where the evidence is conflicting and the jury could have reached its verdict in a manner consistent with the evidence.’”) (quoting Ortlieb v. Butts, 849 So. 2d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)) (additional quotation omitted); § 768.043(2)(a)-(e), Fla. Stat. (2023) (establishing the criteria a trial court must consider, in an action for damages arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, in “determining whether an award is clearly excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Italia Dixon v. World Fiber Techs., Inc., 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Pena v. Vectour OF Fla., Inc., 30 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Ferrer v. La Serna, 179 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Italia Dixon v. World Fiber Techs., Inc., 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)