HELEN LORENE LOWENTHAL AND HENRY LOWENTHAL, APPELLANTS,
v.
E. A. LAURENT AND EVELYN A. LAURENT, APPELLEES
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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion.
Plaintiffs obtained a jury verdict, but the trial court granted a new trial, citing concerns about the fairness of the trial and an excessive verdict.…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial after a jury verdict for plaintiffs.
The lower court stated in his order granting a new trial that, under all the circumstances in the case, certain matters were brought to the attention of the jury by counsel on both sides, that without criticism of the conduct of either of the parties to the action, he considered the case was not fairly and properly tried, that he was of the opinion that the verdict was clearly excessive for the damages accruing to the plaintiffs, and that he was therefore of the opinion that a new trial should be granted.
The presumption on appeal is that the lower court acted properly in granting a new trial. See Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wade, 1905, 49 Fla. 179, 38 So. 49; Tampa Electric Co. v. Ferguson, 1928, 96 Fla. 375, 118 So. 211.
The action of a trial court in granting a new trial will not be reversed unless some settled principle of law has been violated or plain abuse of discretion is shown. Carney v. Stringfellow, 1917, 73 Fla. 700, 74 So. 866.
We do not find from the record in this case that the lower court abused his discretion. We, therefore, affirm the order granting a new trial.
Affirmed.
KANNER, C. J., ALLEN, J., and SMITH, FRANK A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Archibald v. Wittmer, 120 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)…entered by the court below. In granting the defendant appel-lee’s motion for a new trial, the trial judge ruled that the jury had been misdirected. His ruling will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous, Lowenthal v. Laurent, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 410, 411. The burden rests upon appellants to make reversible error clearly appear, Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Rodriquez, Fla.App. 1958, 100 So. 2d 676. In addition, a stronger showing is required to reverse an order allowing a new trial than one deny…
-
City OF Clearwater v. McCLURY, 157 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…236, this court said: “(1,2) In granting the defendant appellee’s motion for a new trial, the trial judge ruled that the jury had been misdirected. His ruling will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous, Lowenthal v. Laurent, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 410, 411. The burden rests upon appellants to make reversible error clearly appear, Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 676. In addition, a stronger showing is required to reverse an order allowing a new trial than one denyi…
-
Iowa Home Mut. Cas. Co. v. Underwriters Mgmt. Corp., 185 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…learly abused its discretion in granting a new trial.1 The order granting a new trial is therefore affirmed. Affirmed. . Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669; Huffman v. Heagy, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 907; Lowenthal v. Laurent, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 410.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)
- Tampa Elec. Co. v. Luella Ferguson and Her Husband, 96 Fla. 375 (Fla. 1928)
- The Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179 (Fla. 1905)