FRANCIS J. HIGGINS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• PIX Shoes OF Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, 201 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
  …iff. It is apparent that the trial judge was well within his discretion in denying a motion for a new trial. See: Cloud v. Fallis, supra; Freeman v. Bandlow, supra; McDaniel v. Carlson, supra; Cosby-Hodges Milling Company v. Sheffield, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 749. It apparently has become the custom in the Circuit Court in Dade County for certain practitioners, upon the conclusion of a trial, to commence an exhaustive investigation and interrogation of the jury room, the jurors and their reasons for arrivin…
• Holden v. DYE, 224 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
  …ew trial. To justify such a holding, it must first be shown that the evidence contained in the record on appeal establishes an abuse of discretion by the trial judge in denying appellants’ motion for new trial. Cosby-Hodges Milling Co. v. Sheffield, 183 So. 2d 749 (Fla.App.1966); and Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, 201 So. 2d 80 (Fla.App.1967). Affirmed. JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.…
• S & S Pharms., Inc. v. Hirschfield, 226 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
  …to be without merit. Spencer v. Florida-Georgia Tractor Company, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 466; Sullivan v. Rank, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 37; Freeman v. Bandlow, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 547; Cosby-Hodges Milling Company v. Sheffield, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 749; Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 80. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment here under review he and the same is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…

Authorities Cited

• Boyer v. State, 182 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)