Kmart Corp. v. Herzog

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kmart Corp. v. Herzog

696 So. 2d 955, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8163, 1997 WL 394821

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 16, 1997·No. No. 96-0800·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We cannot say that the order granting a new trial — on the grounds that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence — is outside the broad discretion given to trial judges in such matters. See Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520 (Fla.1975); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980), Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988); Nicaise v. Gagnon, 597 So.2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In affirming the new trial order, however, we do not do so because we agree that a new trial was required as a matter of law.

STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We cannot say that the order granting a new trial — on the grounds that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence — is outside the broad discretion given to trial judges in such matters. See Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520 (Fla.1975); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980), Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988); Nicaise v. Gagnon, 597 So.2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In affirming the new trial order, however, we do not do so because we agree that a new trial was required as a matter of law.

STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Kmart Corp. v. Herzog, 696 So. 2d 955, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8163, 1997 WL 394821 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

696 So. 2d 955 (Kmart Corp. v. Herzog) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related