EDWARD R. ANNIS, M. D., APPELLANT,
v.
SOL GANG, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1964-02-04
No. 63-434
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
160 So. 2d 171 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1964)

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 reversed an order granting a new trial because the trial court failed to state the grounds for granting the new trial, as required by Florida statute and rule. The case was remanded to reinstate the original judgment.


Holding

Yes, the order granting a new trial must be reversed because the trial court failed to state the grounds for its decision, violating Florida statute and rule.


Key Quotes

“In granting the new trial, no ground was stated in the order.”

This quote establishes the critical factual basis for the appellate court's decision.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The appellant, a doctor, received a favorable jury verdict in a case where the appellee was the plaintiff. The trial court subsequently granted a new …

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.

This appeal seeks review of an order granting a new trial to the appellee, after a favorable jury verdict had been rendered for the appellant.

In granting the new trial, no ground was stated in the order. Failure to state a ground is contrary to the provisions of § 59.07(4), Fla.Stat, F.S.A. and Rule 2.8(f), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A. Therefore, the order 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 with directions.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw