Cruz v. Beckham

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cruz v. Beckham

267 So. 2d 853

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 17, 1972

DocketNo. 72-271

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 267 So. 2d 853 (Cruz v. Beckham) 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

Cruz v. Beckham, 267 So. 2d 853 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this proceeding, the appellant [who was the defendant in the trial court] seeks review of an order granting the appellee [the plaintiff in the trial court] a new trial.

Subsequent to a jury verdict in favor of the defendant in the trial court proceeding, apparently a motion for new trial with attachments was presented to the trial judge who entered the order under review, finding that the plaintiff “did not receive a fair trial”. We are called upon to review the propriety of this order without the benefit of the motion for new trial, affidavit and other matters recited by the trial judge to have been presented to him at the time he made the ruling. We therefore do not have a sufficient record to determine on what the trial judge based his order granting a new trial and, therefore, we are required to affirm same. Carroll v. Allen, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 69; Royal Flair, Inc. v. Cape Coral Bank, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 895; Latin American Benefit Center, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, Fla.App.1972, 257 So. 2d 86.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this proceeding, the appellant [who was the defendant in the trial court] seeks review of an order granting the appellee [the plaintiff in the trial court] a new trial.

Subsequent to a jury verdict in favor of the defendant in the trial court proceeding, apparently a motion for new trial with attachments was presented to the trial judge who entered the order under review, finding that the plaintiff “did not receive a fair trial”. We are called upon to review the propriety of this order without the benefit of the motion for new trial, affidavit and other matters recited by the trial judge to have been presented to him at the time he made the ruling. We therefore do not have a sufficient record to determine on what the trial judge based his order granting a new trial and, therefore, we are required to affirm same. Carroll v. Allen, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 69; Royal Flair, Inc. v. Cape Coral Bank, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 895; Latin American Benefit Center, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, Fla.App.1972, 257 So. 2d 86.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 So. 2d 853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-beckham-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack