FRANK L. DAILEY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF FRANK L. DAILEY, II, A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
WAYNE HENDRICKS AND LEONARD SEALEY, D/B/A WAYNE & LEONARDS AUTO PARTS, 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 court held that the trial court did not improperly exercise its discretion in awarding a new trial based on the verdict being contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
This case involves a prior appeal where the appellate court reversed a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and remanded for entry of judgment on the …
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 Appellate Review Of New Trial Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
On July 6, 1967, this court entered its opinion and judgment in this cause, Dailey v. Hendricks, reported in 200 So.2d 566, reversing the judgment for the defendants notwithstanding the verdict and remanding the cause with instructions to enter a judgment for the plaintiffs in accordance with the jury’s verdict. On certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida that court on March 13, 1968, entered an opinion and judgment in Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So.2d 101, leaving undisturbed our decision to set aside the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, quashing our decision to the extent that it set aside the trial court’s order for a new trial, and remanded the cause to this court for reconsideration in the light of the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Accordingly, we have reconsidered our decision in the light of the said opinion and the principles enunciated in Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959), and have reached the conclusion that we cannot say that the trial court improperly exercised its broad discretion in awarding a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Therefore, the judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed and the order granting a new trial is affirmed. The mandate heretofore issued by this court in this cause is recalled and the clerk is directed to issue a new mandate reflecting the above-amended opinion and judgment of this court.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dailey v. Hendricks, 213 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)…judgment notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiffs, and quashing that part of this court’s opinion pertaining to the setting aside of the order granting a new trial. Upon remand of the cause, this court in a per curiam opinion, Dailey v. Hendricks, 211 So. 2d 222 (Fla.App.1st, 1968), stated: “ * * * we have reconsidered our decision in the light of the said opinion and the principles enunciated in Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959), and have reached the conclusion that we cannot say that the trial c…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1968)
- Dailey v. Hendricks, 200 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)