C. H. HELLER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ANNA HOFFENBERG AND ALEXANDER HOFFENBERG, HER HUSBAND, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a civil assault case where the jury awarded $2,000 in damages. The court found the verdict excessive and offered the plaintiff the option to accept a reduced judgment or face a new trial.
The court held that the proof did not warrant the full amount of the verdict. It offered the defendants in error the option to remit $1,000, in which case the judgment would stand for the remaining balance, otherwise, the judgment would be reversed for a new trial.
“We have examined the record carefully and do not think the proof warrants the amount of the verdict.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reason for intervening in the jury's award.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnna Hoffenberg, joined by her husband, sued for civil assault and was awarded $2,000 in damages by a jury. The defendant appealed the denial of a new…
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 Rebuttal Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*385] Per Curiam.
Anna Hoffenberg joined by her husband, Alexander Hoffenberg, defendants in error, sued the plaintiff in error in an action for civil assault. Damages were laid in the sum of $15,000.00, there was no plea to the declaration but the general issue, at the trial a verdict was returned for'$2,000.00. A new trial was denied and writ of error was taken to the judgment.
The assignments of error are directed to the denial of the motion for new trial and to alleged errors committed in the course of the trial, the principal of which was the admission of testimony on rebuttal that should have been presented as proof in chief.
We have examined the record carefully and do not think the proof warrants the amount of the verdict. If defendants in error will enter their remittitur in the court below for the sum of one thousand dollars the judgment will stand for the balance. Otherwise it' stands reversed for a new trial.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.