Bailey v. Lloyd

62 So. 2d 56, 1952 Fla. LEXIS 1887
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided December 16, 1952·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bailey v. Lloyd, 62 So. 2d 56, 1952 Fla. LEXIS 1887 (Fla. 1952).

62 So. 2d 56 (Bailey v. Lloyd) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bush v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
358 So. 2d 543 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth
201 So. 2d 80 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Lazarus
199 So. 2d 307 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Morgan
190 So. 2d 794 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Ward v. Hopkins
81 So. 2d 493 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1955)