WEBB'S CITY, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
IRVING LUGERNER, 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 lower court failed to specify the grounds for granting the motion, as required by Florida statute and rule. The case was remanded with directions to enter judgment on the jury's verdict.
No, an order granting a motion for a new trial is invalid if it fails to specify the grounds upon which it was granted.
“Section 59.07(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. and Rule 2.6(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A. require that each such order specify the grounds upon which the motion was granted.”
Establishes the legal requirement for specifying grounds when granting a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiff then moved for a new trial, which the trial court granted. How…
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
In this action for damages for personal injuries, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was granted. The order granting the motion for new trial does not specify the ground or grounds upon which said motion was granted. Section 59.07(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. and Rule 2.6(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A. require that each such order specify the grounds upon which the motion was granted. Defendant’s appeal assigned this as error. The order is therefore reversed upon the authority of Gaskill v. Montague, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 420 and cases therein cited. The cause is remanded with directions that final judgment be entered for the plaintiff on the verdict unless motion in arrest of judgment or for judgment non obstante veredicto be made and prevailed as provided by Section 59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
Reversed.
SHANNON, C. J., and ALLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hammett v. Lyte Lyne, Inc., 150 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1963)…paragraph (f) of Rule 2.8, F.R.C.P., amended. See, In re Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 139 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1962). . Ebersole v. Tepperman, 65 So. 2d 564 (Fla.1953); Morton v. Staples, 141 So. 2d 806 (Fla.App.1962); Webb City, Inc. v. Lugerner, 138 So. 2d 531 (Fla.App.1962); Gaskill v. Montague, 128 So. 2d 420 (Fla.App.1961); Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., 122 So. 2d 240 (Fla. App.1960); Means v. Douglas, 110 So. 2d 88 (Fla.App.1959).…
-
Annis v. Sol Gang, 160 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…r of the trial court granting a new trial be and the same is hereby reversed. See: Fulton v. Poston Bridge and Iron, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 240; Gaskill v. Montague, Fla.App. 1961, 128 So. 2d 420; Webb’s City, Inc. v. Lugerner, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 2d 531; A & P Bakery Supply and Equipment Co. v. H. Plexter & Son, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 149 So. 2d 883. This cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of entering an order reinstating the judgment in favor of the appellant. Reversed and remanded…
Authorities Cited
- 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)