BAILEY
v.
LLOYD ET AL.
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 judge's order granting a new trial, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate a strong enough showing to overturn the judge's discretionary decision. The court emphasized the presumption of correctness that attaches to orders granting new trials.
No, the appellant failed to make the strong showing required to persuade the court to reverse the trial judge's order granting a new trial.
“The granting or denying of motion for a new trial rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge and a presumption of correctness attaches to his order.”
Establishes the standard of review for orders granting new trials.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought to reverse an order from the trial judge that granted a new trial. The specific facts leading to the initial trial and the motion…
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 Presumption Of Correctness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant has failed to make the strong showing which is required of her to persuade this Court to reverse the trial judge’s order granting a new trial. The granting or denying of motion for a new trial rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge and a presumption of correctness attaches to his order. -
We have repeatedly held that it requires a much stronger showing to reverse the trial judge when he has granted a motion for new trial than it does to reverse his order when it is one denying a new trial.
Affirmed upon authority of Mead v. Bentley, Fla. 61 So. 2d 428, Martin v. Stone, Fla., 51 So. 2d 33, Dent v. Margaret Ann Super Markets, Fla., 52 So. 2d 130 and Florida Coastal Theaters, Inc., v. Belflower, 159 Fla. 741, 32 So. 2d 738.
SEBRING, C. J., and TERRELL,. THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
PIX Shoes OF Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, 201 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…n the evidence. See: North v. State, Fla.1952, 65 So. 2d 77; Clary v. Blondel, 178 Iowa 101, 159 N.W. 604; 66 C.J.S. New Trial § 196, pages 465, 470. His ruling arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Bailey v. Lloyd, Fla.1953, 62 So. 2d 56; Ward v. Hopkins, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 493; Fuote v. Maule, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 563. In order to overturn the trial judge’s denial of the motion for new trial, it is incumbent upon the appellant to clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion. See…
-
Ward v. Hopkins, 81 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1955)…ough to know better.” It is well settled that the granting or denying of a motion for a new trial rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial Judge and that his order is entitled to a presumption of correctness. Bailey v. Lloyd, Fla., 1953, 62 So. 2d 56. An examination of the record convinces us that if the scene in the trial Court at the time of the exchange between the Judge -and counsel could be re-enacted with all the overtones — the inflection of the voices — the expression on the face of the…1 / 2
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 190 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…[*795] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Bailey v. Lloyd, Fla. 1952, 62 So. 2d 56; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669; Archibald v. Wittmer, Fla. App.1960, 120 So. 2d 236; City of Clearwater v. McClury, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 545; Maynard v. Sullivan, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 75; Danek v. Hoffman, Fla.App. 1966, 189 So.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin v. Stone, 51 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1951)
- Jacobs v. Berlin, 159 Fla. 741 (Fla. 1947)
- Mead v. Bentley, 61 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1952)
- Dent v. Margaret Ann Super Mkts., 52 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1951)