Daon Corp. v. Blankenstein

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Daon Corp. v. Blankenstein

444 So. 2d 85, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11585

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 31, 1984·No. Nos. 83-105, 83-182·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM,

The nature and effect of the order granting the plaintiff’s motion for mistrial was to grant a new trial. See A & P Bakery & Equipment Co. v. H. Hexter & Son, Inc., 149 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). The trial court’s order did not specify the grounds upon which the new trial was granted, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(f). We therefore relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for the entry of an order stating the reasons for granting the new trial. See Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978); Rodewald v. Lawton, 394 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM,

The nature and effect of the order granting the plaintiff’s motion for mistrial was to grant a new trial. See A & P Bakery & Equipment Co. v. H. Hexter & Son, Inc., 149 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). The trial court’s order did not specify the grounds upon which the new trial was granted, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(f). We therefore relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for the entry of an order stating the reasons for granting the new trial. See Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978); Rodewald v. Lawton, 394 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Remanded for further proceedings.

Daon Corp. v. Blankenstein, 444 So. 2d 85, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11585 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

444 So. 2d 85 (Daon Corp. v. Blankenstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related