POSTAL TELEGRAPH & CABLE COMPANY
v.
BART DOYLE
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, on rehearing, affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff on the condition that the plaintiff enter a remittitur of $3,500.00, otherwise the judgment would be reversed and a new trial granted. The court reasoned that the case had been tried twice with similar results, and further litigation would not serve the ends of justice given the conflicting evidence and the likelihood of a similar verdict.
The judgment will be affirmed if the plaintiff enters a remittitur of $3,500.00, allowing the judgment to stand for the remaining balance. Otherwise, the cause will be reversed and a new trial awarded.
“We do not recede from the view expressed in the main opinion that reversible error was committed but the case has been twice tried resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff and the testimony is such that a third jury would likely return a verdict in some amount in favor of plaintiff.”
Establishes the court's prior finding of reversible error but also acknowledges the repeated plaintiff verdicts and likelihood of a similar outcome.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a plaintiff who had twice won a verdict in a lower court. The facts were complicated and the evidence highly conflicting. The court …
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 Ends Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
On Petition for Rehearing.
On petition for rehearing, we have reexamined the record and briefs in this cause. We do not recede from the view expressed in the main opinion that reversible error was committed but the case has been twice tried resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff and the testimony is such that a third jury would likely return a verdict in some amount in favor of plaintiff. As often happens in cases of this kind, the facts are complicated and the evidence highly conflicting.
When such an impasse has been reached, the ends of *708justice are not best served by permitting litigation to drag along indefinitely. There is ahmit beyond which the award in such cases cannot reasonably pass and when the cost of victory, if secured, exceeds that limit, the victor has a feeling, that even so, he has been “gypped” and that by an agency provided by society to secure his rights. Courts are justified in applying reasonable means to intercept such situations and bring the litigation to an end. If Plaintiff below will accordingly enter a remittitur in the sum of $3,500.00 the judgment will be permitted to stand for the balance as of date thereof. Otherwise, the cause will stand reversed and a new trial awarded.
Affirmed with remittitur.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
State v. Dewell, 131 Fla. 566 (Fla. 1938)…dict of guilty against five of the relators in this case on the charge of the substantive offense of kidnaping. The Per Curiam opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Davis in the first appearance of the case here, see Brown, et al., v. State, 128 Fla. 762, 175 South. Rep. 515, justified the statement that political interests had been so aroused in Hillsborough County,, in the Criminal Court of Record of which county the information was lodged, as to justify a change of venue to another county in order that the defendants…1 / 2
-
Honchell v. State, 257 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1971)…e, 134 Fla. 456, 185 So. 422 (1938); Rogers v. United States, 334 F. 2d 83 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, Levine v. United States, 380 U.S. 915, 85 S.Ct. 892, 13 L.Ed.2d 800; 6 Fla.Jur. Conspiracy §§ 17 and 18. See also Brown v. State, 128 Fla. 762, 175 So. 515 (1937), where this Court restated: “ . . . the usual rule that upon the trial of an indictment for a substantive offense, evidence is admissible to prove a conspiracy to commit the substantive crime charged in the indictment (although no conspiracy…
-
Brown v. State, 130 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1938)…Attorney General of Florida, joined by the States Attorney in and for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, has filed a petition in this Court praying interpretation or clarification of our opinion filed herein July 1st, 1937, and reported in 175 Sou. 515. The information under which the defendants were placed on trial was in four counts. The first count charged that-the defendants, “on the 30th day of November, in the year of Our Lord, one thousand nine hundred thirty-five, with force and arms at…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Postal Tel. & Cable Co. v. Bart Doyle, 123 Fla. 695 (Fla. 1936)