ADVANCED X-RAY ANALYSIS, INC., A/A/O ANTONIO GOMES
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
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's denial of a motion for mistrial and motion for new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and such motions should be granted only when counsel's comments are so inflammatory and prejudicial that they deny the opposing party a fair trial.
[1] Denial of a motion for mistrial or new trial based on counsel's closing argument is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and such relief is warranted only when the comments…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial and a motion for new trial . . . is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 'Generally, a mistrial or new trial should be granted only when counsel's comments are so inflammatory and prejudicial that they deny the opposing party a fair trial.' When assessing the comments, '[c]ontext is crucial.'”
Statement of the legal standard for reviewing denials of mistrial and new trial motions
Advanced X-Ray Analysis, Inc., sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. During trial, State Farm's counsel made comments during closing ar…
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 Unpreserved Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Araujo v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 290 So. 3d 936, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“A trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial and a motion for new trial . . . is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. ‘Generally, a mistrial or new trial should be granted only when counsel’s comments are so inflammatory and prejudicial that they deny the opposing party a fair trial.’ When assessing the comments, ‘[c]ontext is crucial.’”) (citations omitted);
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Cuculino, 165 So. 3d 36, 38-39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that, while counsel’s improper comments during closing argument were not ones the appellate court condoned, nonetheless the comments were not so highly prejudicial and inflammatory that a party was denied a fair trial); Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that, when alleged error arising from both improper closing argument and attorney misconduct during trial is unpreserved, a motion for a new trial must establish the argument or conduct was improper, harmful, incurable, and damaging to the fairness of the trial).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Cuculino, 165 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)