Bello v. Angella

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bello v. Angella

171 So. 2d 547

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 16, 1965

DocketNo. 64-585

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 171 So. 2d 547 (Bello v. Angella) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bello v. Angella, 171 So. 2d 547 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, the appellant (defendant in the trial court) seeks review of an order setting aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and granting a new trial on all the issues.

The trial judge having granted a new trial, it is incumbent upon the appellant to make a stronger showing to upset such an order than one which denied a new trial. See: Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 494. The trial judge, in his order granting the new trial, stated that the verdict was arrived at without regard to the evidence and through either misunderstanding, bias, prejudice or passion.

Upon an examination of the record in its entirety [although we might have had a different view as a trial judge] we do not find sufficient abuse of discretion to warrant a reversal of his order and, therefore, same is hereby affirmed. See: Austria v. Donovan, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 377.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, the appellant (defendant in the trial court) seeks review of an order setting aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and granting a new trial on all the issues.

The trial judge having granted a new trial, it is incumbent upon the appellant to make a stronger showing to upset such an order than one which denied a new trial. See: Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 494. The trial judge, in his order granting the new trial, stated that the verdict was arrived at without regard to the evidence and through either misunderstanding, bias, prejudice or passion.

Upon an examination of the record in its entirety [although we might have had a different view as a trial judge] we do not find sufficient abuse of discretion to warrant a reversal of his order and, therefore, same is hereby affirmed. See: Austria v. Donovan, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 377.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 So. 2d 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bello-v-angella-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack