Lowenthal v. Laurent

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lowenthal v. Laurent

102 So. 2d 410, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2826

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 1958

DocketNo. 66

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 102 So. 2d 410 (Lowenthal v. Laurent) 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

Lowenthal v. Laurent, 102 So. 2d 410, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2826 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial after a jury verdict for plaintiffs.

The lower court stated in his order granting a new trial that, under all the circumstances in the case, certain matters were brought to the attention of the jury by counsel on both sides, that without criticism of the conduct of either of the parties to the action, he considered the case was not fairly and properly tried, that he was of the opinion that the verdict was clearly excessive for the damages accruing to the plaintiffs, and that he was therefore of the opinion that a new trial should be granted.

The presumption on appeal is that the lower court acted properly in granting a new trial. See Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wade, 1905, 49 Fla. 179, 38 So. 49; Tampa Electric Co. v. Ferguson, 1928, 96 Fla. 375, 118 So. 211.

The action of a trial court in granting a new trial will not be reversed unless some settled principle of law has been violated or plain abuse of discretion is shown. Carney v. Stringfellow, 1917, 73 Fla. 700, 74 So. 866.

We do not find from the record in this case that the lower court abused his discretion. We, therefore, affirm the order granting a new trial.

Affirmed.

KANNER, C. J., ALLEN, J., and SMITH, FRANK A., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial after a jury verdict for plaintiffs.

The lower court stated in his order granting a new trial that, under all the circumstances in the case, certain matters were brought to the attention of the jury by counsel on both sides, that without criticism of the conduct of either of the parties to the action, he considered the case was not fairly and properly tried, that he was of the opinion that the verdict was clearly excessive for the damages accruing to the plaintiffs, and that he was therefore of the opinion that a new trial should be granted.

The presumption on appeal is that the lower court acted properly in granting a new trial. See Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wade, 1905, 49 Fla. 179, 38 So. 49; Tampa Electric Co. v. Ferguson, 1928, 96 Fla. 375, 118 So. 211.

The action of a trial court in granting a new trial will not be reversed unless some settled principle of law has been violated or plain abuse of discretion is shown. Carney v. Stringfellow, 1917, 73 Fla. 700, 74 So. 866.

We do not find from the record in this case that the lower court abused his discretion. We, therefore, affirm the order granting a new trial.

Affirmed.

KANNER, C. J., ALLEN, J., and SMITH, FRANK A., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 So. 2d 410, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowenthal-v-laurent-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack