RICHARD PONTE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLOYD I. LATTIN, APPELLEE
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 reversed an order granting a new trial because the trial judge failed to specify the grounds for the new trial, as required by Florida statute and rule. The case was remanded with directions to enter judgment on the jury's verdict.
Yes, the trial judge erred by failing to state the grounds for granting the new trial in the order. This failure requires reversal of the order.
“Because the order granting new trial failed to state the ground or grounds on which it was granted, it is hereby reversed”
Establishes the reason for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury returned a verdict in an automobile accident case. The trial judge granted the defendant's motion for a new trial but did not state the specifi…
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
This appeal is under § 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., from an order granting a new trial after a verdict in an automobile accident case. Appellant assigns as error the failure of the trial judge to indicate in the order granting new trial the ground on which the motion for it was granted, as required by § 59.07(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and rule 2.6(d), F.R.C.P., 31 F.S.A. Because the order granting new trial failed to state the ground or grounds on which it was granted, it is hereby reversed (Gaskill v. Montague, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 420; Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 240; Means v. Douglas, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 88; Ebersole v. Tepperman, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 564); and the cause is remanded with directions as provided for in said § 59.04, id., “that final judgment be entered in the trial court for the party obtaining the verdict, unless motion in arrest of judgment or for judgment non obstante veredicto be made and prevail.”
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morton v. Elmo Staples, 141 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…strict observance of this rule (Kent v. Tallahassee Motor Co., supra), the record in this case furnishes no basis to excuse non-compliance.” For additional authority see Gaskill v. Montague, 128 So. 2d 420 (Fla.App.3rd, 1961), and Ponte v. Lattin, 135 So. 2d 260 (Fla.App.3rd, 1961). The order granting a new trial is reversed with directions to reinstate the judgment. WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and STUR-GIS J., concur. . Means v. Douglas, 110 So. 2d 8S (Fla. App.1st, 1959). . Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron…
-
J. A. Cantor & Assocs., Inc. v. Devore, 281 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…tions, for a jury to determine the apparent authority of an agent to bind his principal. Bush Grocery Company v. Conely, 61 Fla. 131, 53 So. 329; Parsons v. [*247] Federal Realty Corporation, 105 Fla. 105, 143 So. 912; Willis v. Clark, Fla.App.1961, 135 So. 2d 260. And, it was appropriate for the trial judge in this brokerage commission suit to charge the jury on the custom of the trade. Compare: Blackburn v. Alachua County Broadcasting Company, Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 303; National Airlines, Inc. v. Oscar E…
-
Hutchins v. City OF Hialeah, 153 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…See Ebersole v. Tepperman, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 564; Means v. Douglas, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 88; Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 240; Gaskill v. Montague, Fla.App.1961, 128 So. 2d 420; Ponte v. Lattin, Fla.App.1961, 135 So. 2d 260; Morton v. Staples, Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 806; Hammett v. Lyte Lyne, Inc., Fla.1950, 150 So. 2d 235. The order for new trial is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions to reinstate the verdict and judgment. Rever…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., 122 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Means v. Douglas, 110 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Gaskill v. Montague, 128 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Simpson, 128 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- State ex rel. Peterman v. Adams, 65 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1953)