JULIAN EUGENE KENNEDY, APPELLANT,
v.
PLANT CITY, FLORIDA, AND AL GODWIN, APPELLEES

Fla. 2d DCA | 1963-08-02
No. 3816
KANNER, Acting C. J., ALLEN, J., and OVERSTREET, MURRAY W., Associate Judge, concur.
155 So. 2d 556 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1963)

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.

Synopsis

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant a new trial after a jury awarded the plaintiff both compensatory and punitive damages. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the trial judge.


Holding

No, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial.


Key Quotes

“The lower court awarded a new trial upon the grounds that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and the punitive damages award was so grossly excessive as to shock the judicial conscience.”

Describes the grounds for the lower court's decision to grant a new trial.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The plaintiff, Julian Kennedy, obtained a jury verdict awarding him $300 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages against Plant City and…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals an order granting a new trial after he had secured a jury verdict in the court below. Upon trial, the jury awarded the appellant a verdict of $300 compensatory and $5000.00 punitive damages. The lower court awarded a new trial upon the grounds that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and the punitive damages *557award was so grossly excessive as to shock the judicial conscience.

We are of the opinion that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial. See Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.App. 1958, 107 So.2d 264; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669; and Hutchinson v. Lott, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 442.

Affirmed.

KANNER, Acting C. J., ALLEN, J., and OVERSTREET, MURRAY W., Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw