THOMAS
v.
SENTERFIET
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.
Thomas appeals an order granting a new trial in a civil case. The Circuit Court initially reversed the new trial order for failing to state grounds as required by procedural rules, but after the lower court supplemented the order with stated grounds, the appellate court affirmed the new trial order on the merits.
An order granting a new trial must contain a statement of the grounds upon which the motion is granted under the applicable civil procedure rules. The lower court's supplemented order, which properly stated the grounds for granting a new trial, is affirmed as no error appears in the record.
“Under section 2.6 (d), 1954 rules of civil procedure, an order granting a new trial must contain a statement of the ground or grounds upon which the motion is granted, and the order granting a new trial in this case does not state such ground or grounds”
Establishes the procedural requirement that new trial orders must state their grounds and that the original order violated this requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe lower court issued an order on December 6, 1954, setting aside a judgment and granting a new trial. The original order did not contain a statement…
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 Order Granting New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
January 9,1956: The basis of the appeal is an order of the lower court dated December 6, 1954, setting aside a judgment and granting a new trial.
Under section 2.6 (d), 1954 rules of civil procedure, an order granting a new trial must contain a statement of the ground or grounds upon which the motion is granted, and the order granting a new trial in this case does not state such ground or grounds, whereupon, the order vacating the judgment and granting a new trial is reversed.
In the event a new or supplemental order is made by the lower court which will comply with the rule referred to, the matter may be brought on again for hearing before this court on the present appeal and briefs, in the interest of saving time and expense to the parties if it is agreeable to the attorneys to do so, and the attorneys for the parties have indicated their agreement to this feature — provided that the parties may have time for filing additional briefs if they desire it following the court’s statement of such grounds, in which event the appellant would have ten days for sup*183plemental brief and the appellee ten days thereafter, and the appellant five days additional for possible reply brief. It is so ordered.
July 13, 1956: Following the order of this court dated January 9,1956, the lower court supplemented the order setting aside plaintiff’s judgment and granting a new trial, by setting out the court’s grounds, and the matter having then come on for hearing before this court, and this court having heard arguments of counsel and having considered the record and briefs, and no error having been made to appear, the order appealed from is affirmed.