JACKSONVILLE TRACTION COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ESTELLE CHISHOLM, 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 a judgment on the condition that the plaintiff accept a reduced award, finding the original judgment excessive due to potential contributory negligence and the extent of the injury.
The judgment was excessive. If the plaintiff agrees to a remittitur of $1,000, the remaining $2,000 judgment will stand affirmed; otherwise, the judgment will be reversed and a new trial awarded.
“there is no reversible error in said judgment except that because of the apparent eoutributory negligence of the plaintiff in the court below and because of paucity of the injury suffered, the judgment is excessive.”
The court's primary reason for modifying the judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Estelle Chisholm, was awarded a judgment against the Jacksonville Traction Company. The defendant appealed, arguing the judgment was ex…
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 Excessive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is *727no reversible error in said judgment except that because of the apparent eoutributory negligence of the plaintiff in the court below and because of paucity of the injury suffered, the judgment is excessive. It is therefore the judgment of this court that if the defendant in error here, plaintiff in the court below shall within ten days from the date of the filing of the mandate herein in the court below enter of record a remittitur in the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) judgment for the remainder of the judgment, to-wit two thousand dollars as of the date of the original judgment shall stand affirmed. Otherwise the judgment shall stand reversed and a new trial awarded.
It is so ordered.
Buford, C.J. and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex Parte: N. Vernon Hawthorne. Ex Parte: Dan J. Mahoney, 116 Fla. 608 (Fla. 1934)…aws can only be officially nominated, and have their names printed upon the general election ballots, by procuring their1 nomination in a primary election. State v. Gerow, 79 Fla. 804, 85 Sou. Rep. 144; State, ex rel. Harris v. Belote, 106 Fla. 938, 143 Sou. Rep. 881; State, ex rel. Barnett v. Gray, 107 Fla. 73, 144 Sou. Rep. 349;, State, ex rel. Waite v. Gray, 107 Fla. 109, 144 Sou. Rep. 356. [*617] So a primary election held under the primary election laws of this State may properly be said to be an “election”…
-
State v. Gray, 107 Fla. 73 (Fla. 1932)…had been made in a primary election. See State ex rel. Chamberlain v. Tyler, 100 Fla. 1112, 130 South. Rep. 721; State ex rel. v. Peacock, — Fla. — , — So. Rep. —, filed September 27, 1932 ; State ex rel. v. Belote, filed Oct. 6, 1932, 106 Fla. 939, 143 So. 881. It is not alleged that the relators were nominated in a primary election; nor is it alleged that the relators were nominated by the executive committee of a political party as candidates for the respective offices named, because no candidates of th…
-
State v. Gray, 125 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1936)…tion laws can only be officially nominated, and have their names printed upon the general election ballots, by procuring their nomination in a primary election. State v. Gerow, 79 Fla. 804, 85 So. 144; State, ex rel. Harris, v. Belote, 106 Fla. 938, 143 So. 881; State, ex rel. Barnett, v. Gray, 107 Fla. 73, 144 So. 349; State, ex rel. Waite, v. Gray, 107 Fla. 109, 144 So. 356. “So a primary election held under the primary election laws of this State may properly be said to be an ‘election’ within the purv…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence