SALLIE ACOSTA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MARY F. GINGLES ET AL., 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.
Sallie Acosta challenged a trial court's order granting a new trial in an ejectment action where the jury had ruled in her favor. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the new trial order, holding that absent a clear abuse of discretion and with conflicting evidence on material issues, appellate courts should not reverse such orders.
An appellate court should not reverse a trial court's order granting a new trial unless it affirmatively appears from the record that there has been an abuse of sound judicial discretion or violation of a settled principle of law. When conflicting testimony exists on material issues and no palpable preponderance of evidence supports the verdict, the appellate court will not reverse the new trial order.
“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 for appellate review of new trial orders—reversals require clear abuse of discretion or violation of law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis was an ejectment action in which the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff Acosta. The defendants moved for a new trial on ten grounds, asser…
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 Bill Of Exceptions cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
A writ of error was taken under the statute from an order granting a new trial in an action of ejectment wherein the verdict was for the plaintiff. The only question to be considered is the propriety of the order granting the motion of the defendants for a new trial. There are ten grounds of the motion asserting in varying terms that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, and is contrary to the charge of the court, and that the court erred in charges given and in not directing a verdict for the defendants.
A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of 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 tidal and one of the grounds of the motion is that the verdict is not supported by the weight of the evidence, and it does not appear upon what grounds 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 verdict. Jones v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 56 Fla. 452, 47 South. Rep. 1. See also Dunnellon Phosphate Co. v. Crystal River Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 131, 58 South. Rep. 786; L. & N. Rv. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179.
The bill of exceptions contains no certificate by the trial judge as required by Special Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, that the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence introduced at the trial; and, as provided in such rule, “in the absence of such certificate the bill will be treated and taken as one not embracing all the evidence.” As the court did not indicate on which one of the grounds of the motion the new trial was granted, the order may have been predicated upon a ground relating to the probative force of the evidence, and as there is no certificate that the transcript contains all the evidence adduced at the trial, the order granting a new trial must be affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hock-er, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)…v. Diaz, 62 Fla. 421, 57 South. Rep. 614; Beverly v. Hardaway, 66 Fla. 177, 63 South. Rep. 702; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179, 38 South. Rep. 49; Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Spencer, 46 Fla. 255, 35 South. Rep. 73; Acosta v. Gingles, 65 Fla. 507, 62 South. Rep. 582; Hobbs v. Cheyney, 62 Fla. 214, 56 South. Rep. 554; Connor v. Elliott, 59 Fla. 227, 52 South. Rep. 729. While it is the proper function and province of the jury to compare and weigh complicated and contradictory evidence of fact…1 / 2
-
Theola Ruff v. Georgia, 67 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1914)…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 of the court and to the weight of the evidence; (2)…
-
McMillan v. Nelson, 5 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1942)…ce of the evidence, and grants the motion, and no such preponderance of the evidence appears as would show an abuse of the judge's discretion, his ruling will not be held reversible error. Hobbs v. Cheyney, 62 Fla. 214,56 So. 554; Acosta v. Gingles, 65 Fla. 507, 62 So. 582; Bishop v. Taylor, 41 Fla. 77, 25 So. 287; Aberson v. A.C.L. R. Co.,68 Fla. 196, 67 So. 44; Dominguez v. Citizens Bank, etc., Co.,62 Fla. 148, 56 So. 682; Ruff v. Georgia, Southern etc. R. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 So. 782. In the instant ca…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Dunnellon Phosphate Co. v. Crystal River Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 131 (Fla. 1912)
- The Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179 (Fla. 1905)