SAM HOUSTON HUFFMAN AND MORSE AUTO RENTALS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
PATRICIA MAXINE HEAGY AND PHILLIP JOHN HEAGY, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
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.
This case involves an appeal from an order granting a new trial in a personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the presence of a newspaper with potentially prejudicial content in the jury room warranted a new trial.
No, the trial court did not err in granting a new trial. The presence of the newspaper article could have prejudiced the jury, and the trial judge's discretion in granting a new trial on this ground should not be interfered with.
“Appellate courts are much more reluctant to interfere with an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial.”
Establishes the standard of review for orders 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 intelligenceDuring a personal injury trial, a newspaper containing an inflammatory article detrimental to personal injury plaintiffs was found in the jury room. T…
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
Appellants, defendants in a personal injury action, seek review of an order granting a new trial which contained several grounds, one of which was: “ * * * that the Plaintiffs did not receive a fair and impartial trial from a fair and impartial jury, and that the jury was swayed by outside influence 1 beyond the control of the Court. This was recognized in the context of the adversary proceedings and the oversight in not specially charging the jury must be considered as being prejudicial error.”
Appellate courts are much more reluctant to interfere with an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial. See: Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 494. If the order is sustainable on any ground, it should not be interfered with. See: State Plant Board v. Smith, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 401; Berkman v. Miami National Bank, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 535. It is apparent that the newspaper which was found in the jury room during the course of the trial in this cause could have contaminated the jury, and we will not interfere with the discretion of the trial judge in granting a new trial on this ground because of his failure to instruct in this regard. See: Ridarsick v. Amirkanian, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 580.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Strickland, 172 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…ted to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose ruling thereon will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. Gelfo v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 31; Huffman v. Heagy, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 907; Morin v. Halpern, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 495. In the present case the heavy burden resting on the appellant has not been sustained. The trial judge, having observed the witnesses, the jury and respective counsel, was best positioned to rule on t…
-
Policari v. Cerbasi, 625 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…xpressed by the trial court. It is a basic premise that each of the parties are entitled to a fair trial. New trials have been allowed when it is suspected that a jury could have been contaminated by newspaper articles. See, e.g., Huffman v. Heagy, 159 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 166 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1964). The judgment is vacated and we remand for a new trial. JUDGMENT VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED. W. SHARP, and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.…
-
Iowa Home Mut. Cas. Co. v. Underwriters Mgmt. Corp., 185 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…law has been violated or that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion in granting a new trial.1 The order granting a new trial is therefore affirmed. Affirmed. . Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669; Huffman v. Heagy, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 907; Lowenthal v. Laurent, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 410.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- State Plant Bd. v. Walter A. Smith and wife, 110 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1959)
- Berkman v. Miami Nat'l Bank, 143 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Ridarsick v. Georgianna Amirkanian, 147 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Simpson v. Clay, 139 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)