Metropolitan Dade County v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Metropolitan Dade County v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

365 So. 2d 1082, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14124

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 9, 1979

DocketNo. 78-201

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 365 So. 2d 1082 (Metropolitan Dade County v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty 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

Metropolitan Dade County v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 365 So. 2d 1082, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14124 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal we are asked to review the propriety of a trial court order granting a motion for new trial in a negligence action on the sole ground that “the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” The trial court ordered herein does not give reasons to support the conclusion reached nor does it point to anything in the record upon which the conclusion was based so as to be susceptible to appellate review as required by Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430, 435 (Fla.1978); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hicks, 363 So.2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); White v. Martinez, 359 So.2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Accordingly, the order under review is reversed based on the above authorities and the cause is remanded to the trial court pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(f) with directions to enter an order specifying legally adequate grounds for granting the new trial herein.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal we are asked to review the propriety of a trial court order granting a motion for new trial in a negligence action on the sole ground that “the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” The trial court ordered herein does not give reasons to support the conclusion reached nor does it point to anything in the record upon which the conclusion was based so as to be susceptible to appellate review as required by Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430, 435 (Fla.1978); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hicks, 363 So.2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); White v. Martinez, 359 So.2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Accordingly, the order under review is reversed based on the above authorities and the cause is remanded to the trial court pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(f) with directions to enter an order specifying legally adequate grounds for granting the new trial herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 So. 2d 1082, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-dade-county-v-united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack