ABELARDO CRUZ, APPELLANT,
v.
LIZZIE GRIFFIN BECKHAM, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Of New Trial Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
By this proceeding, the appellant [who was the defendant in the trial court] seeks review of an order granting the appellee [the plaintiff in the trial court] a new trial.
Subsequent to a jury verdict in favor of the defendant in the trial court proceeding, apparently a motion for new trial with attachments was presented to the trial judge who entered the order under review, finding that the plaintiff “did not receive a fair trial”. We are called upon to review the propriety of this order without the benefit of the motion for new trial, affidavit and other matters recited by the trial judge to have been presented to him at the time he made the ruling. We therefore do not have a sufficient record to determine on what the trial judge based his order granting a new trial and, therefore, we are required to affirm same. Carroll v. Allen, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 69; Royal Flair, Inc. v. Cape Coral Bank, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 895; Latin American Benefit Center, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, Fla.App.1972, 257 So. 2d 86.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (37 total)
-
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Milam, 177 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…Clay Parker, 160 So. 3d 955, 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (holding that a material breach “goes to the essence of the contract,” and that “trivial noncompliance and minor failings” are not material breaches); Beefy Trail, Inc. v. Beefy King Int’l, Inc., 267 So. 2d 853, 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (same). III. Having decided that a lender’s adherence to the requirements of paragraph twenty-two is reviewed for substantial rather than strict compliance, we first address the circuit court’s stated basis for granting su…
-
Smith v. L. Christian Mogelvang, M.D., 432 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…d the issue is another possible factor. (4) Whether the position taken by the party attempting to insert the issue into the case clearly appears to be meritorious may be an additional factor. See Beefy Trail, Inc. v. Beefy King International, Inc., 267 So. 2d 853, 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). (5) A further factor may be whether there is sufficient time from when the issue is inserted into the case, or when there is clear notice that the issue will be inserted into the case, to the time when the opposing party h…
-
John Brown Automation, Inc. v. Nobles, 537 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…contract for the purchase of the machines. Moreover, his August, 1983, stock purchase was not bottomed “on the faith of the contract” and is not recoverable in an action for a breach of contract. Beefy Trail, Inc. v. Beefy King International, Inc., 267 So. 2d 853, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). It is within our power to and we strike Nobles’ claims to $304,-500 and $570,527.50. Another evident problem associated with the jury verdict stems from the fact [*619] that McHan Manufacturing was awarded $700,000. The $6…
Previewing 3 of 37 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Royal Flair, Inc. v. The Cape Coral Bank, 251 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Latin Am. Benefit Ctr., Inc. v. Raphael Johstoneaux, 257 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Carroll v. Allen, 219 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)