GEORGE F. PURINTON
v.
EDYTHE ZIMMANCK
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment, holding that a jury's verdict based on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal if the trial judge, who observed the witnesses, denied a motion for a new trial.
Yes, when the evidence is conflicting, it is the jury's role to determine the truth, and a verdict supported by such evidence will not be disturbed on appeal, especially when the trial judge denied a motion for a new trial.
“Where evidence is conflicting it is the province of the jury to reconcile the same, if possible, and if they can not do so then to determine who is and who is not speaking the truth and, upon such evidence as they believe to be true to return their verdict.”
This quote explains the jury's role in resolving conflicting evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued for damages after a car collision, claiming the defendant's negligence caused her injuries. The plaintiff testified, and her accoun…
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 Jury'S Role In Weighing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
— The writ of error brings for review judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action for damages caused by injury received when an automobile occupied and driven by plaintiff came into collision with an automobile occupied and driven by defendant.
Plaintiff in error bases his- right-to reversal exclusively on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.
*816The. plaintiff testified in her own behalf and under the state of facts as detailed by her she was entitled to recover. The testimony was conflicting. The charge of the court was fair and is not here complained of.
- Where evidence is conflicting it is the province of the jury to reconcile the same, if possible, and if they can not do so then to determine who is and who is not speaking the truth and, upon such evidence as they believe to be true to return their verdict. The jury exercised this right and performed their duty in such manner that the Circuit Judge, who had the opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to observe their manner and demeanor on the stand, denied a motion for new trial timely made and presented and which motion raised every question which is presented to us.
A verdict predicated on supporting evidence will not be disturbed on writ of error, no errors of law or procedure appearing. Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Mixon, 79 Fla. 420, 84 Sou. 171; Foxworth v. Maddox, 103 Fla. 32, 137 Sou. 161.
So, the judgment is affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- R. J. Foxworth and his wife v. Maddox, 103 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1931)
- Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. Mixon, 79 Fla. 420 (Fla. 1920)