A. D. ZACKARY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
GEORGIA, FLORIDA & ALABAMA RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT 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, holding that appellate courts should not disturb such orders unless there's a clear abuse of discretion or violation of law, especially when evidence is conflicting.
No, the trial court did not err in granting a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the order because there was no clear abuse of discretion or violation of law, and the evidence was conflicting.
“An order of the trial court granting a new trial should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless it appears affirmatively from the record that there has been an abuse of a sound judicial discretion, or that some settled principle of law has been violated.”
Establishes the standard of review for orders granting new trials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an action at law where the trial court granted a new trial. The appellate court reviewed the order granting the new trial, consideri…
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 Conflicting Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
— This writ of error was taken under the statute to an order granting a new trial in an action at law. The only matter for determination is the alleged error in granting the new trial.
A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial courts, and where a trial court grants such a motion the action in doing so is presumed to be in accordance with the justice and merits of the case, unless the contrary appears by the record. An order of the trial court granting a new trial should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless it appears affirmatively from the record that there has been an abuse of a sound judicial discretion, or that some settled principle of law has been violated.
When the trial court grants a motion for new trial and one of the grounds of the motion is that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, and it does not appear upon what ground the motion was granted, and there is conflicting testimony upon a material issue in the cause, the appellate court’ will not reverse the order where there is no palpable preponderance of evidence in favor of the ver diet. Jones v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 56 Fla. 452, 47 South. Rep. 1.
The evidence does not clearly establish that the injury alleged was proximately caused by the negligence or fault of the defendant, and there is evidence to the contrary, therefore under the rules announced in previous cases the order of the trial court granting a new trial is affirmed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)…170, 11 South. Rep. 618; McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep, 485; Ruff v. Georgia, S. & F. R. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 South. Rep. 782; Dominguez v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 62 Fla. 148, 56 South. Rep. 682; Zackary v. Georgia, F. & A. R. Co. 62 Fla. 419, 56 South. Rep. 686; Dunnellon Phosphate Co. v. Crystal River Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 131, 58 South. Rep. 786. In this case the evidence as to the liability of the defendants is conflicting in essential particulars and the evidence does not in law requ…
-
Theola Ruff v. Georgia, 67 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1914)…isville & N. R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179, 38 South. Rep. 49; Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342, 47 South. Rep. 825; Hobbs v. Cheyney, 62 Fla. 214, 56 South. Rep. 554; Connor v. Elliott, 59 Fla. 227, 52 South. Rep. 729; Zackary v. Georgia F. & A. R. Co., 62 Fla. 419, 56 South. Rep. 686; Acosta v. Gingles, 65 Fla. 507, 62 South. Rep. 582; Chancey v. Williams, '56 Fla. 215, 47 South. Rep. 811. Among the grounds of the motion for new trial are specifications that (1) the verdict is contrary to law, to the charge…
-
Aberson v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 68 Fla. 196 (Fla. 1914)…should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless it appears affirmatively from the record that there has been an abuse of a sound judicial discretion, or that some settled principle of law has been violated. Zackary v. Georgia, F. & A. R. Co., 62 Fla. 419, 56 South. Rep. 686. ' 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 [*201] the cause to the substantial injury of one o…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. Jacksonville Elec. Co., 56 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1908)