JAMES STAFFORD, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
L. M. BERRY AND COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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 this slander case, the plaintiff obtained a $30,000 jury verdict against the defendant, but the trial court ordered a remittitur of $20,000 or a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the defendant's directed verdict motions but reversed the remittitur and new trial orders, reinstating the full jury verdict.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to require jury consideration, so the denial of the directed verdict motions was proper. However, the trial court erred in ordering the remittitur and new trial because the damages issue was properly submitted to the jury with proper instructions, and no basis existed for the new trial order.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion for a directed verdict is proper when sufficient evidence exists to require jury consideration.
[2] A trial court errs in ordering a remittitur when damages were properly submitted to the jury under proper instructions.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“there was sufficient evidence to require consideration of the case by the jury, therefore the trial judge was eminently correct in denying, defendant's motion for directed verdict”
Establishes that the appellate court upheld the trial court's rejection of the directed verdict motion based on sufficiency of evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Stafford filed a slander action against appellee L. M. Berry and Company and Southeastern Telephone Company. Summary judgment was granted ag…
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 Slander cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff below, filed an action for slander against appellee, defendant below, and Southeastern Telephone Company. A summary judgment was entered in favor of Southeastern Telephone Company. At the trial the court denied the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and submitted the case to the jury who returned a verdict in the sum of $30,000 in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant filed a timely motion seeking that the judgment entered pursuant to the jury verdict be set aside and that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant in accordance with its motion for directed verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The trial court ordered a remit-titur in the sum of $20,000 or, in the alternative, a new trial. The plaintiff refused the remittitur and now appeals the order granting the new trial. The defendant has cross-assigned as error the denial of its motion for a directed verdict and its post-trial motion for a judgment in accordance with its motion for directed verdict.
Our examination of the record reveals that there was sufficient evidence to require consideration of the case by the jury, therefore the trial judge was eminently correct in denying, defendant’s motion for directed verdict and its post-trial motion for a judgment in accordance therewith.
However, the record also reveals that the issue of damages was properly submitted to the jury under proper instructions and that the trial court erred in ordering a remittitur. Further, the record fails to reveal any basis for the trial judge’s order granting a new trial. (See Wolkowsky v. Garfunkel, 1913, 65 Fla. 10, 60 So. 791 and Black v. Heininger, Fla.App.2nd 1964, 163 So. 2d 3)
Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment in favor of the plaintiff appellant against the defendant appellee in accordance with the verdict of the jury.
RAWLS, C. J., concurs.
McCORD, J., dissents, without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Helms v. Kelly, 163 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Wolkowsky v. Garfunkel, 65 Fla. 10 (Fla. 1913)