RONALD MICHAEL RATNER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARSHA ELLEN PRESSMAN, 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.
In a paternity case, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for new trial after a jury verdict found the defendant was not the father. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretionary decision to grant a new trial based on alleged jury bias and a verdict against the weight of evidence.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion for new trial. The court had a broad and liberal discretion to grant new trials, and the appellant failed to carry the burden of demonstrating that the court abused its discretion regarding jury bias or the finding that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in granting a new trial.
[2] A new trial may be granted when a party is not given a full opportunity to obtain an unbiased jury due to legal error.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is a long settled rule that the discretion allowed to a trial judge in the granting of new trials is a very broad and liberal one.”
Establishes the standard of review and the broad discretion trial courts have in granting new trials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee filed a complaint alleging that the appellant was the father of her unborn child. The case was tried before a jury, which rendered a verd…
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 Paternity Action cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee was plaintiff below, having' filed her complaint against the appellant which alleged that he was the father of her unborn child. The case was tried before a jury and a verdict was rendered on behalf of the appellant, finding that he was not the father of the (by-then) born child of the appellee. Thereafter, the appellee filed her motion for judgment n. o. v., or in the alternative, motion for new trial. The court granted her motion for the new trial, and the appellant has appealed that order.
The trial judge predicated his granting of the motion for the new trial on two grounds. First the judge acknowledged that the appellee had not been given her full opportunity to obtain a panel of jurors who were unbiased and unprejudiced concerning the issues involved in this particular case because of the commission of a legal error. The second ground was that the verdict was against the manifest weight of evidence. It is a long settled rule that the discretion allowed to a trial judge in the granting of new trials is a very broad and liberal one. E. g., Canizares v. Encore, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 790. The judge’s determination as to the possible bias or prejudice that may have been present in the jury was based on the applicable law. See Mizell v. New Kingsley Beach, Inc., Fla. App.1960, 122 So.2d 225. Moreover, having reviewed the record on appeal, we cannot say that the appellant has carried the burden of demonstrating that the court abused its discretion as to his findings that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
For the reasons stated above, the order granting the appellee’s motion for new trial is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Frank J. Rooney, Inc., 627 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…a. 3d DCA 1987); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959); Martin v. State Farm, Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 392 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Boca Teeca Corp. v. Palm Beach County, 291 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Ratner v. Pressman, 235 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Fla.R.Civ.P., 1.431; Sanchez v. International Park Condominium Association, Inc., 563 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); International Insurance Company v. Ballon, 403 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Blancher v. Metropolitan Dade Co…
Authorities Cited
- Mizell v. NEW Kingsley Beach, Inc., 122 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Canizares v. Encore, Inc., 192 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)