THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY
v.
S. H. FRIED
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 trial court's decision to grant a new trial sua sponte after a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The court held that trial courts have inherent jurisdiction to grant new trials on their own motion during the term, and such grants are not an abuse of discretion when evidence on essential points is conflicting.
The trial court did not err in granting a new trial sua sponte. Trial courts have inherent jurisdiction to grant new trials during the term on their own motion, and such grants are not an abuse of discretion when the evidence on essential points is conflicting, even if the verdict is not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
“the court could sua sponte grant a new trial during the term, the Court was not without jurisdiction”
Establishes the trial court's inherent authority to grant new trials on its own motion
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in error (Board of Public Instruction for Escambia County) in the trial court. The trial judge, ac…
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 Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review an order granting a new trial entered by the trial court sua sponte.
The plaintiff in error presents one question, as follows: “Did the lower court err by granting, on its own motion, a new trial to the defendant in error when the jury had passed *254on the facts and rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in error in the court below?”
The order granting new trial should be affirmed on authority of opinion and judgment in the case of Gulf Refining Co. v. Howard, 82 Fla. 27, 89 Sou. 349, wherein it was said:
“But as the court could sua sponte grant a new trial during the term, the Court was not without jurisdiction; and the order extending the time for making a motion for new trial and the order granting a new trial, made during the term, are not void and subject to motion to vacate made after an adjournment of the court for the term.
“The only question now is, whether error was committed in granting a new trial. Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 South. Rep. 866.
“While it cannot fairly be said that the verdict for the defendant is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as asserted in the grounds of the Plaintiff’s motion for new trial, the evidence on essential points involved in the issues being tried is conflicting, and it does not clearly appear that the granting of a new trial was an abuse of discretion. Cheney v. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324, 81 South. Rep. 475; Carney v. Stringfellow, supra; Ruff v. Georgia S. &. F. R. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 South. Rep. 782; Orchard v. Charlotte Harbor & N. R. Co., 66 Fla. 353, 63 South. Rep. 717, Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384, 45 South. Rep. 994; Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124, 31 South. Rep. 283.”
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford, and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J. and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. State, 384 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1980)…114 So. 429 (1927). The State filed a “traverse”, but admitted the truth of the facts contained in the Motion to Dismiss, contending the undisputed facts nevertheless did constitute a prima facie case of guilt, citing Sherman v. State, 135 Fla. 243, 184 So. 843 (1938). The matter came on for hearing upon the pleadings, defendant Carter and his counsel being present. The defense introduced a copy of Carter’s aforementioned deposition, letter of January 6, 1977 and statement of services rendered dated Januar…1 / 2
-
State v. Carter, 364 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…is case we feel that whether or not there was an acknowledgement of the falsity and a voluntary retraction before the falsity had been exposed were questions of fact for the jury. These facts are more akin to those in Sherman v. State, 135 Fla. 243, 184 So. 843 (1938) where the defendant’s conviction for perjury was affirmed. There, after giving false testimony the defendant did not retract until the truth had become known and the false testimony would no longer serve his purpose. It is our opinion that t…
-
State v. Godby, 498 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…intentionally false statements on the part of a witness, and perjury will not be predicated upon such statements when the witness, before the submission of the case, fully corrects his testimony.” 114 So. at 431. In Sherman v. State, 135 Fla. 243, 184 So. 843 (1938), the defendant testified falsely in August, 1937. This testimony was recanted when the defendant was summoned before the court in December, 1937 (the opinion is unclear as to why he was resummoned or what the nature of the proceeding was). Th…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)
- Theola Ruff v. Georgia, 67 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1914)
- Cheney v. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1919)
- Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1901)
- Gulf Ref. Co. v. Lizzie Howard, 82 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1921)
- Davis Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384 (Fla. 1908)
- Orchard v. Charlotte Harbor & N. Ry. Co., 66 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1913)