Farrior v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Co.

220 So. 2d 386, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6025
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 25, 1969
DocketNo. K-344
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 So. 2d 386 (Farrior v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Co.) 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
Farrior v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Co., 220 So. 2d 386, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6025 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs have appealed an order granting defendant’s motion for new trial grounded upon the finding by the trial court that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence in the case.

[387]*387In Cloud v. Fallis1 the Supreme Court held that a trial judge should always grant a new trial if he finds that the jury has been deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record. It further held that inasmuch as motions for new trial are granted in the exercise of a sound, broad discretion, the ruling should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that it has been abused. The burden to make error clearly appear is on the appellant.

Appellants having failed to clearly demonstrate error in the ruling complained of, the order appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPEC-TOR, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.
222 So. 2d 483 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
220 So. 2d 386, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrior-v-prudence-mutual-casualty-co-fladistctapp-1969.