ANTHONY RALPH BELLO, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK ANGELLA, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a trial court's order granting a new trial, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient abuse of discretion by the trial judge. The trial judge had found the jury's verdict to be unsupported by the evidence.
No, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial. The appellant failed to make a strong enough showing to overturn the trial judge's decision.
“The trial judge having granted a new trial, it is incumbent upon the appellant to make a stronger showing to upset such an order than one which denied a new trial.”
Establishes the higher burden of proof for an appellant seeking to overturn an order granting 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 intelligenceThe plaintiff (appellee) obtained a jury verdict in his favor. However, the trial judge set aside this verdict and granted a new trial for all issues.…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal, the appellant (defendant in the trial court) seeks review of an order setting aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and granting a new trial on all the issues.
The trial judge having granted a new trial, it is incumbent upon the appellant to make a stronger showing to upset such an order than one which denied a new trial. See: Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 494. The trial judge, in his order granting the new trial, stated that the verdict was arrived at without regard to the evidence and through either misunderstanding, bias, prejudice or passion.
Upon an examination of the record in its entirety [although we might have had a different view as a trial judge] we do not find sufficient abuse of discretion to warrant a reversal of his order and, therefore, same is hereby affirmed. See: Austria v. Donovan, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 377.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atl. Aircraft Corp. v. Gaines H. English and Jean C. English, 198 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…ing the trial court’s action in sustaining a motion for a new trial than it is in upholding the court’s action in denying such a motion. General Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Gager, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 749; Bello v. Angella, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So. 2d 547. Decisions should be on the merits of the case with a view toward promoting justice and should not be based on procedural niceties. Kaufman v. Sweet et al. [*865] Corporation, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 515. We feel that there is a vital deficiency i…
-
Bello v. Angella, 177 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1965)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 171 So. 2d 547.…
-
Sutton v. Gomez, 234 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…that coverage for the insured exists.” See, Shingleton at p. 718. .See, e. g., Cloud v. Fallis (Fla.1959), 110 So. 2d 669; Lykes Brothers, Inc. v. Single-tary, Jr., et al. (Fla.App.2d 1966), 190 So. 2d 589 and Bello v. Angella (Fla.App.3d 1965), 171 So. 2d 547. Also, compare National Western Life Insurance Co. v. Walters, et al. (Fla.App.3d 1968), 216 So. 2d 485, referring to a narrower discretion when an alleged legal error, as distinguished from a mere exercise of discretion, is involved as here. . C…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Simpson v. Clay, 139 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Austria v. Gertrude P. Donovan, 169 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)