TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CLAUDE WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1929-05-25
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
97 Fla. 898 Florida Supreme Court (1929)

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment on the condition that the plaintiff accept a reduced damages award, otherwise, the judgment would be reversed for a new trial due to excessive damages.


Holding

The court found the damages award to be excessive. The judgment will stand affirmed if the plaintiff accepts a remittitur of $2250.00, reducing the award to $3500.00; otherwise, the judgment will be reversed for a new trial.


Key Quotes

“if the plaintiff below enter a remittitur of $2250.00, the said judgment will stand affirmed for $3500.00 damages, otherwise the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial.”

The court's conditional holding regarding the excessive damages.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Tampa Electric Company appealed a judgment awarded to Claude Williams. The appellate court reviewed the record, briefs, and arguments presented by bot…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

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, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; other than that the award of damages is excessive; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that if the plaintiff below enter a remittitur of $2250.00, the said judgment will stand affirmed for $3500.00 damages, otherwise the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. See Woolworth Company v. McLeod, filed April 16, 1929.

It is so ordered.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw