BARBARA MALEC, APPELLANT,
v.
MILLICENT HALTER, APPELLEE
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 a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff could not seek review of the trial court's evidentiary rulings when she had not first moved for a new trial based on an inadequate verdict.
No, a plaintiff who has received a favorable jury verdict cannot seek appellate review of alleged trial court errors without first moving for a new trial based on the inadequacy of the verdict.
“A condition permitting a plaintiff [recovering a favorable verdict] to seek appellate review is that a motion for new trial be addressed to the trial court urging inadequacy of the verdict.”
This quote explains the procedural requirement for a prevailing plaintiff to appeal a favorable verdict.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a married woman, obtained a jury verdict in her favor in a personal injury action. She appealed, seeking review of the trial judge's re…
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.
Appellant [plaintiff in the trial court] seeks review of a favorable jury verdict, contending that the trial judge committed error when he refused to permit medical bills [incurred as a result of an alleged accident] to be introduced by the plaintiff, who was a married woman.
At common law, the prevailing party plaintiff could not seek review of a favorable verdict. This has been modified in this State by judicial rulings. Paul v. Kanter, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 402; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 10. A condition permitting a plaintiff [recovering a favorable verdict] to seek appellate review is that a motion for new trial be addressed to the trial court urging inadequacy of the verdict. Guarria v. State Road Department of Florida, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 5; Paul v. Kanter, supra. This was not done in the instant case and, therefore, we do not disturb the verdict and final judgment here under review.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morrison v. Bohne, 274 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…in the amount of $2,500. He did not file a motion for new trial urging the inadequacy of the verdict, and therefore may not seek appellate review of his favorable judgment; Paul v. Kanter, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 402; Malec v. Halter, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 782; and O’Leary v. Watson, Fla.App.1972, 263 So. 2d 643. Joseph D. Morrison’s assignment of error recites: 1. The lower court erred in denying the motion for new trial as to Joseph D. Morrison by Order dated October 6, 1971, and filed in the records…
-
O'Leary v. Watson, 263 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…e plaintiffs appealed. Each of the appellants claims insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment in the amount rendered because of inadequacy of the verdict. No motion for new trial was filed. In Malec v. Halter, Fla.App.1969, 216 So. 2d 782, with regard to necessity for the filing of a motion for new trial, as. a condition for a successful plaintiff to urge inadequacy of a verdict, this court said: “At common law, the prevailing party plaintiff could not seek review of a favorable ver…
-
Vega v. Cosmopolitan Mut. Ins. Co., 336 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…court. The judgment must be affirmed upon the authority of the rule stated in Morrison v. Bohne, Fla.App.1973, 274 So. 2d 896, and authorities cited therein. See also: O’Leary v. Watson, Fla.App.1972, 263 So. 2d 643; Malec v. Halter, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 782; Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Smith, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 557. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Fay S. Paul v. Risa Bonnie Kanter & the Hertz Corp., 155 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Guarria v. Duke, Jr., 117 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)