RUSSELL LAWRENCE JONES, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
  …Goodman, 204 So. 2d 21 (4th DCA Fla. 1967); Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So. 2d 483 (Fla.1961). However, a misconception by the trial judge of a controlling principle of law can constitute grounds for reversal. E. g., Aronson v. Siquier, 318 So. 2d 452 (3d DCA Fla. 1975); Green v. Putnam, 93 So. 2d 378 (Fla.1957); Knight v. City of Miami, 127 Fla. 585, 173 So. 801 (1937). The trial court’s imposition of a constructive trust could well be supported by evidence adduced at trial but not stated in th…
• Gould v. Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 421 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
  …stated as grounds for granting a new trial are inadmissible evidence as to profits and exces-siveness of the damage award. It is also settled law that the function of a remittitur is to correct an improper verdict as to damages, Aronson v. Siquier, 318 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), and where the error is only that the damages awarded are excessive it is not proper to retry the issue of liability: remittitur or new trial on damages is the remedy. Ellis v. Golconda Corporation, 352 [*803] So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1s…
• Salkay v. State Farm Mut. Auto. INS. Co., 398 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
  …ould properly support the order of remittitur or in the alternative a new trial.1 Wackenhut Corporation v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959); Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1954); Aronson v. Siquier, 318 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Remitti-tur as an alternative to a new trial is consistent with the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff was also negligent. The order purporting to vacate the order of remittitur is reversed; the order granting remittitur i…

Authorities Cited

• Weeks v. State, 316 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)