IRADELLE HOLMES ET VIR, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHECKER CAB CO. ET AL., 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant a new trial on damages only, finding no abuse of discretion. The new trial was granted due to the plaintiffs' counsel making a "Golden Rule" argument during summation.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on damages only.
“Appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal from an order granting the appellee-defendants' motion for a new trial.”
Establishes the procedural posture of the case and the nature of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The jury awarded $11,000 to the injured plaintiff and $4,000 to her husband. During …
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 Golden Rule Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal from an order granting the appellee-defendants’ motion for a new trial.
The plaintiff, Iradelle Holmes, was injured in an automobile accident and, joined by her husband, brought an action against the defendants. The jury returned a verdict of $11,000 in favor of the plaintiff, Mrs. Holmes, and $4,000 for her husband.
During the plaintiffs’ rebuttal summation to the jury, the defendants moved for a mistrial on the ground that plaintiffs’ counsel had made, in effect, a “Golden Rule” .argument to the jury. The court below granted a new trial to the defendants on damages only.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and do not find that the court below abused its discretion in granting a new trial on damages only. Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 264, cert. dismissed Fla., 110 So.2d 669.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., SHANNON, J., and ODOM, ARCHIE M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Cloud v. Fallis, 107 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)