RONALD C. STIRLING AND COLLEEN FINNEY STIRLING, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES W. SAPP AND SANDRA ASH SAPP, HIS WIFE, 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.
In this follow-up appeal after the Florida Supreme Court reversed the District Court's reversal of a jury verdict for automobile negligence plaintiffs, the District Court holds that the trial judge lacked authority to grant a new trial motion and must reinstate the jury's original verdict as mandated by the Supreme Court.
The trial court lacked authority to grant the motion for a new trial and was required to reinstate the plaintiffs' verdict as directed by the mandates from both courts.
[1] A trial court must comply with the mandates of a higher court, including instructions to reinstate a jury verdict.
[2] A trial court lacks the authority to grant a motion for a new trial after a higher court has issued a mandate directing the reinstatement of a jury verdict.
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“For the reasons stated the decision of the District Court of Appeal is quashed and the cause is remanded with instructions that the cause be further remanded to the Circuit court with instructions that the verdict and final judgment for plaintiffs be reinstated.”
The Florida Supreme Court's clear directive to reinstate the jury verdict, which the trial judge violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury found for plaintiffs Stirling in an automobile negligence action. The District Court of Appeal initially reversed, but the Florida Supreme Cour…
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.
This was an automobile negligence action tried by jury who found for appellants here. The case was originally appealed to this court at 209 So.2d 251. The Supreme Court of Florida at 229 So.2d 850 quashed this court’s opinion and remanded the cause with instructions to reinstate the verdict for plaintiff-appellants. The supreme court said:
“For the reasons stated the decision of the District Court of Appeal is quashed and the cause is remanded with instructions that the cause be further remanded to the Circuit court with instructions that the verdict and final judgment for plaintiffs be reinstated.”
Thereafter, appellees filed their petition for rehearing claiming that the opinion should be revised and remanded for hearing and ruling on their alternative motion for a new trial. This petition was denied by the supreme court and this court issued its mandate, saying:
“WHEREAS, the Mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida has now been lodged in this Court, it is therefore
“ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of this Court of April 5, 1968, is vacated and the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith adopted and made the opinion and judgment of this Court and in accordance therewith the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, with directions that the verdict of the jury and final judgments for the Plaintiffs be reinstated.”
Upon receipt of the mandate the trial judge, instead of reinstating plaintiffs’ verdict as directed, granted appellees’ motion for a new trial and this appeal followed.
The question here is whether or not the trial court had the authority to grant the motion for a new trial or was he required to reinstate the plaintiffs’ verdict as di*698rected by the supreme court’s and this court’s mandates.
We believe the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motion for a new trial and the only thing he could do was to reinstate plaintiffs’ verdict as directed by the mandates. See Rinker Materials Corporation v. Holloway Materials Corporation, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 564; State ex rel. Mortgage Investment Foundation, Inc. v. Knott, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 265.
Therefore the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate plaintiffs’ verdict.
PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Weggies Banana Boat, 576 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…ty to deviate from our mandate by granting the motion for new trial. It was limited by our direction to the task of reinstating the verdicts.” Waltman v. Prime Motor Inns, Inc., 461 So. 2d 120, 120-121 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984). See also Stirling v. Sapp, 238 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). We recognize, of course, that the trial court’s sua sponte order impeaching the jury verdict foreclosed Weggies from seeking review of the verdict in Weggies I. The verdict was rendered on August 19 and the mistrial order was en…
-
Waltman v. Prime Motor Inns, Inc., 461 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…t to revisit previously filed motions. The trial court lacked authority to deviate from our mandate by [*121] granting the motion for new trial. It was limited by our direction to the task of reinstating the verdicts. See Robinson; Stirling v. Sapp, 238 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Cf. Navarro v. City of Miami, 402 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (trial court may rule upon earlier motion for new trial where appellate court specifically directs trial court to do so upon remand). The order under review is qua…
Authorities Cited
- Stirling v. Sapp, 229 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1969)
- Gregerson v. State, 175 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- State of Fla. on Relation of Mortg. Inv. Found., Inc. v. Knott, 97 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1957)
- Stirling v. Sapp, 209 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)