MARTIN
v.
MEYER; MARTIN V. ROSEN 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.
In this wrongful death case arising from a railroad crossing accident, the Florida Supreme Court addressed the scope of appellate review when a trial court grants a motion for new trial on only some of the grounds presented. The Court held that appellate review is limited strictly to the grounds specified by the trial judge in the order granting the new trial, and struck the plaintiffs' cross-assignment of error that attempted to raise an unspecified ground.
Appellate review of an order granting a new trial is limited strictly to the grounds specified by the trial judge in the order. The appellate court cannot consider or review any grounds for new trial that were not expressly designated by the trial judge as a basis for granting the motion.
“In every case in which the trial court shall enter an order granting a motion for a new trial, the trial judge shall indicate in the order granting said motion the particular ground or grounds upon which said motion was granted, and upon appeal from any such order, if taken under the statutes providing for appeal from orders granting new trials, no other grounds than those specified by the trial judge, as a basis for the order granting the new trial, shall be considered as arguable upon said appeal.”
This quote from Section 59.07(4) of the Florida Statutes 1951 establishes the statutory limitation on appellate review of orders granting new trials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJack R. Rosen was killed and two minor children (Norman J. Rosen and Richard I. Rosen) were injured in a railroad crossing accident. B. H. Meyer, as e…
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 Final Judgment Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
SEBRING, Justice.
Jack R. Rosen was killed and Norman J. Rosen and Richard I. Rosen, minors, were injured, as the result of a railroad crossing accident. B. H. Meyer, as executor, d. b. n., of the estate of Jack R. Rosen, and as next friend of the minor children, brought suit against the railroad company involved to recover damages for the wrongful death. The verdict was for the defendant. The plaintiffs 'filed a 19-ground motion for a new trial. The trial court entered an order in which it granted the motion for new trial on grounds 2, 4, 7 and 15, without mention of the remaining grounds of the motion. The defendant appealed from the ruling assigning as error the entry of the order granting the new trial. The plaintiffs filed a .cross-assignment of error assigning as ground of error the refusal of the trial court to grant the 18th ground of the motion for new trial, which ground was directed to the refusal of the trial court to admit certain testimony that had been proffered at the trial by the plaintiffs. •
The matter is now before this Court on a motion of the appellant to strike the cross-assignment of error from the record, on the ground that the matter assigned as error is not arguable on this appeal.
It is the general rule that an appeal will lie only from, a final judgment or decree, Hensley v. Palmer, Fla., 59 So. 2d 851, unless provision is made by rule or statute for an appeal from an interlocutory order. Ruff v. Georgia S. & F. R. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 So. 782; Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Pan-American Airways, 126 Fla. 736, 171 So. 808; Howard v. Ziegler, Fla., 40 So. 2d 776. The appeal at bar is from an interlocutory order, namely, an order granting a motion for new trial. Such an appeal is allowable only because of the existence of a specific statute granting such right of appeal. Section 59.04, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A. In order to determine the scope of such an appeal resort must be had to the terms of the applicable statute.
Section 59.07(4), Florida Statutes 1951, F. S.A., sets out specifically the scope of an appeal from an order granting a new trial. It provides, “In every case in which the trial court shall enter an order granting a motion for a new trial, the trial judge shall indicate in the order granting said motion the particular ground or grounds upon which said motion was granted, and upon appeal from any such order, if taken under the statutes providing for appeal from orders granting new trials, no other grounds than those specified by the trial judge, as a basis for the order granting the new trial, shall be considered as arguable upon said appeal.”
As will be seen from the language used in the statute, where an appeal from an order granting a new trial is “taken under the statutes providing for appeal from orders granting new trials, no other grounds than those specified by the trial judge, as a basis for the order granting the new trial, shall be considered as arguable upon said appeal.” The cross-assignment filed by the plaintiffs below attempts to go beyond the statute by presenting for review a ground of the motion for new trial not specified by the trial court as a basis for the order from which tíre appeal is taken. The motion to dismiss the cross-assignment should therefore be granted. Compare Bopp v. City of Miami, 114 Fla. 262, 154 So. 199; Wolfe v. City of Miami, 114 Fla. 238, 154 So. 196; Knudsen v. Hanlan, 160 Fla. 566, 36 So. 2d 192.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, Acting C. J., and MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leonetti v. Boone, 74 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1954)…t that not even the grounds of the motion for new trial other than those “specified by the trial [*554] judge, as a basis for the order granting the new trial, [can] be considered as arguable” upon a cross assignment of error. Martin v. Meyer, Fla., 68 So. 2d 597. This view of the limited scope of an appeal from an order granting a new trial is consistent with the nature of the order in question. In a case where the trial court reserves its ruling on a motion for directed verdict until after the verdict on t…
-
Brannon v. Johnston, 83 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1955)…fected. Unless provision is made by Rule or Statute for an appeal from an interlocutory order, it is the general rule to which we have consistently adhered that an appeal will lie only from a final judgment or decree. See Martin v. Meyer, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 597; and Cone v. Benjamin, 142 Fla. 604, 195 So. 416. Consistent with our previous holdings, it is clear that in the case before us the judicial labor has not been completed, the order appealed from is clearly interlocutory in character and will, there…
-
Hattie M. Lockhart v. Friendly Fin. Co., 110 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…, Fla.1953, 62 So. 2d 904. See: Dieas v. Associates Loan Company, supra, note 1. . Fouts v. Household Finance Corporation, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 772. . F.S. § 59.07(4), F.S.A. . Leonetti v. Boone, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 551; Martin v. Meyer, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 597.…
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
- Theola Ruff v. Georgia, 67 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1914)
- Knudsen v. Hanlon, 160 Fla. 566 (Fla. 1948)
- Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co. v. Pan-American Airways, Inc., 126 Fla. 736 (Fla. 1937)
- Wolfe v. City of Miami, 114 Fla. 238 (Fla. 1934)
- Diaz v. Parkland Ests., 114 Fla. 273 (Fla. 1934)
- Howard v. Ziegler, 40 So.2d 776 (Fla. 1949)
- Hensley v. Palmer, 59 So.2d 851 (Fla. 1952)
- Bopp v. City of Miami, 114 Fla. 262 (Fla. 1934)