DEAUVILLE REALTY CO., INC., AND DEAUVILLE ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
SAMUEL H. TOBIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS TOBIN & TOBIN, AND JOSEPH NORWOOD, 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.
This case involves an extraordinary petition for rehearing in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, seeking to remand the case for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The court denied the petition, finding the evidence was not newly discovered but rather forgotten evidence that was known to the appellants' attorney during the original trial.
No, forgotten evidence that was known to the appellant's attorney during the trial does not constitute newly discovered evidence that would justify a writ of error coram nobis.
“The petition discloses that the evidence in question was in the possession and knowledge of an attorney who represented appellants in the transaction involved, and, therefore, was not unavailable during the trial.”
Establishes that the evidence was not newly discovered as it was known to the appellants' attorney.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought to have their case remanded for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. This evidence was in the possession and knowledge of…
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 Writ Of Error Coram Nobis cases and more on FLexlaw
Following affirmance of the judgment and denial of petition for rehearing, appellants have filed an extraordinary petition for rehearing in the nature of an application for a writ of error coram nobis, seeking to have the cause remanded to the trial court to move again there for a new trial on the ground of certain newly discovered evidence, bearing on an issue which was concluded by the verdicts and the judgment.
The petition discloses that the evidence in question was in the possession and knowledge of an attorney who represented appellants in the transaction involved, and, therefore, was not unavailable during the trial. It was not shown to be newly discovered evidence, but on the contrary, was forgotten evidence, now newly remembered.
On the showing made on this petition we hold that the movant is not entitled to the relief sought. See Vining v. American Bakeries Co., 121 Fla. 116, 163 So. 396; 121 Fla. 122, 163 So. 519; 7 Fla.Jur., Coram Nobis, §§ 10, et seq.
The extraordinary petition is denied.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Schatz v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 128 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)…ing that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The summary final judgment appealed Js accordingly affirmed. Affirmed. STURGIS, J., concurs. CARROLL, DONALD K., J., dissents. . Food Fair Stores of Florida v. Sommer, Fla.App.1959, 111 So. 2d 743. . Walker v. Feltman, Fla.App.1959, 111 So. 2d 76. . Pope v. Pinkerton-Hayes Lbr. Co., Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 227. . Watkins v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App.1957, 308 S.W. 2d 906.…
-
Deauville Realty Co., Inc. v. Tobin, 120 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…of the commission. This second petition added the contention that the trial judge was biased against one E. M. Loew, president of defendant corporations. The first such petition was denied by this court (Deauville Realty Co. v. Tobin, Fla.App.1959, 111 So. 2d 743), and certio- [*200] rari thereto was denied by the Supreme Court (115 So. 2d 8). Thereafter, although appellants’ petition for leave to do so had been denied by this court, appellants filed a motion in the circuit court to vacate the judgment and f…
-
Blanford v. Polk Cnty., 410 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…ht, 308 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). However, a jury’s verdict cannot rest on a mere probability or a guess, and we cannot affirm a verdict where there is no rational predicate for it in the evidence. Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Sommer, 111 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Based upon the appellant’s written statement that he was not injured as a result of the accident, the jury could have found that he did not sustain any injuries. However,, it was undisputed that a portion of the medical expenses…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eugenia Vining v. Am. Bakeries Co., 121 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1935)
- Eugenia Vining v. Am. Bakeries Co., 121 Fla. 122 (Fla. 1935)