PALM COURT CORP.
v.
LILLIE M. SMITH
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 affirmed a jury verdict for the defendant in a case that had been before the court previously. The court found no error in the denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, upholding the jury's decision.
Yes, the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of showing entitlement to recover. The court found no error in the denial of the motion for a new trial and affirmed the judgment based on the jury's verdict.
“The question now before us, in short, is whether or not the record shows that the plaintiff met the burden of showing itself entitled to recover from the defendant under the law of the case as stated in the former opinion above referred to.”
This quote frames the central issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case was before the Florida Supreme Court for the second time. On the first occasion, the court reviewed a judgment where a demurrer was sustaine…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us for the second time. See Palm Court Corporation v. Smith, 103 Fla. 233, 137 Sou. 234. On the former occasion it was here on writ of error to review a final judgment rendered on demurrer being sustained to first, second and fifth counts of plaintiff’s amended declaration.
There is no contention that there was any evidence to ‘sustain the allegations of the third and fourth counts of the plaintiff’s amended declaration.
The question now before us, in short, is whether or not the record shows that the plaintiff met the burden of show*624ing itself entitled to recover from the defendant under the law of the case as stated in the former opinion above referred to.
The facts were submitted to a jury under proper instructions and the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant.
We find no error in the order denying motion for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence.
The judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. THE City OF Miami, 156 Fla. 784 (Fla. 1946)…kins v. Lee, 143 Fla. 154, 194 So. 315. It may issue to coerce the performance of official duties where officials charged by law with the performance of a duty refuse or fail to perform the same. Over-street v. State ex rel. Carpenter, 115 Fla. 151, 155 So. 926. The relator must establish a clear right to its issuance and further show that no other adequate remedy exists. State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 Fla. 650, 44 So. 213, 13 L.R.A. (NS) 320, 12 Ann. Cas. 359. In the case of Blitch v. City of Oc…
Authorities Cited
- Palm Court Corp. v. Smith, 103 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1931)