EDWARD BALL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JAMES A. YATES, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 reversed a judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the jury verdict was not supported by the evidence. The court found that the trial judge should have granted the defendant's motion for a new trial.
No, the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence. The trial court should have granted the defendant's motion for a new trial.
“When it was presented before, the trial judge had instructed a verdict for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's testimony and on that appeal we held that the jury should have been permitted to pass upon the issues after introduction of the defendant's testimony.”
Describes the procedural history and prior appeal of the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case was previously before the court, where the trial judge had directed a verdict for the defendant. The appellate court at that time held that …
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 New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
This case was before us in Yates v. Ball, 137 Fla. 530, 188 Sou. 586. It appears now on an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff below. When it was presented before, the trial judge had instructed a verdict for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s testimony and on that appeal we held that the jury should have been permitted to pass upon the issues after introduction of the defendant’s testimony.
Following that decision the circuit court conducted an *538extensive trial at which there was offered voluminous testimony on the part of the respective litigants.
With the picture of the transaction now complete, we are of the view that the verdict is not supported by the evidence adduced in support of the allegations of the declaration and the motion for a new trial should have been granted with leave to amend the declaration if so advised.
For the reasons stated, the' judgment is reversed and a new trial awarded.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
(concurring). — I concur in the per curiam opinion excepting that part referring to an amendment of the declaration.
Thomas, J.
(concurring). — I concur in the per curiam opinion excepting that part referring to an amendment of the declaration.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ball v. Yates, 158 Fla. 521 (Fla. 1946)…of the transaction [is] now complete,” and expressing the view that “the verdict is not supported by the evidence adduced in support of the allegations of the declaration and the motion for a new trial should have been granted . . .” Ball v. Yates, 145 Fla. 537, 200 So. 701. The reference in the opinion to the completeness of the picture suggests the latter part of the statute, Section 4363, supra, now designated as Section 54.17, Laws of Florida, 1941, and F.S.A., further providing that: “If, after all…1 / 3
Authorities Cited
- Knabb v. Giddings E. Mabry, 137 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1939)