A & P BAKERY SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
H. HEXTER & SON, INC., AN OHIO, CORPORATION, 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.
A trial court rejected a jury's not-guilty verdict, declared a mistrial, and granted the plaintiff a new trial without stating any grounds for doing so. The appellate court reversed, holding that Florida law requires trial courts to state the grounds for granting a new trial, and remanded with directions to reinstate the defendant's verdict.
A trial court order granting a new trial must state the grounds for such action. An order that fails to assign grounds for granting a new trial is reversible error, and the verdict must be reinstated when no proper grounds are provided.
“Under § 59.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and rule 2.8(f), F.R.C.P., 31 F.S.A., the ground for such action must be stated in the order.”
Establishes the legal requirement that trial courts must state grounds for 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 trial was conducted in civil court in Dade County. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant. The trial judge refused to accept thi…
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 New Trial Grounds cases and more on FLexlaw
In a jury trial in the civil court of record in Dade County, the trial judge refused to accept a verdict rendered for the defendant and announced a mistrial. Later, after hearing a motion by the defendant to enter judgment on the verdict and a motion by plaintiff for mistrial, the court denied the former and granted the latter. That order was as follows:
“This Cause having come on upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Order of Mistrial and Defendant’s Motion to Affirm Jury Verdict, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being advised in the premises, upon consideration thereof, it is
“Ordered and Adjudged that plaintiff’s motion be granted and defendant's motion be denied and the trial of the within Cause had on February 8, 1962 be and the same is hereby declared a mistrial. It is further,
“Ordered and Adjudged that the Plaintiff may proceed to a new trial in this Cause upon the filing of a notice of trial within the time prescribed by law.”
The nature and effect of the above order was to grant a new trial. No ground was given by the trial court for rejecting the verdict and allowing a new trial. The order is appealable under § 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Under § 59.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and rule 2.8(f), F.R.C.P., 31 F.S.A., the ground for such action must be stated in the order. For failure to assign grounds for granting new trial, the order must be reversed. See Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 240, 242, and cases cited there.
The order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to reinstate the verdict of not guilty and to enter judgment thereon in favor of the defendant.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Aaron A. Sebers v. Hon. Joseph P. McNULTY, 326 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1975)…trial. Characterization when made is not as important as the legal effect at the time of ruling. Both of these motions, however, test the extent of error in the course of a proceeding. A & P Bakery Supply and Equipment Co. v. H. Hexter & Son, Inc., 149 So. 2d 883 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1963), . Section 924.07(2), Fla.Stat. . Fla.App. Rule 1.3. Although the trial court’s order was not “recorded” until January 16, 1975, it was “filed” at the time of signing on December 10, 1974. The latter date, not the former,…
-
Keene Bros. Trucking, Inc. v. Pennell, 614 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1993)…(Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (order of mistrial is not reviewable on appeal when order is entered before “rendition” of jury verdict); Gibson v. Troxel, 453 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (same); A & P Bakery Supply & Equipment Co. v. H. Hexter & Son, Inc., 149 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (order granting mistrial because judge refused to accept verdict was in effect order granting new trial, which was appealable). “Rendered,” as defined by this Court, means not only that the verdict has been announced but also that…
-
Gibson v. Troxel, 453 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…, 40 A.L.R.2d 1281 (Fla.1952). Esneault v. Waterman Steamship Corporation, 449 F. 2d 1296 (5th Cir.1971); Martinez v. Winner, 548 F.Supp. 278, 309 (D.Colo.1982). The defendants contend that A & P Bakery Supply & Equip. Co. v. H. Hexter & Son, Inc., 149 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), is authority for reviewing an order of mistrial. However, that reliance is misplaced because in A & P the jury returned a verdict which the court refused to accept. The court thereafter ordered a mistrial. On appeal the district…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)