Schaller v. KMart Corp.
631 So. 2d 380, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1004, 1994 WL 45111
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 15, 1994·No. No. 92-1266·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Sandra Joan Schaller, plaintiff below, appeals the denial of her motion for new trial, asserting that the damages awarded to her were inadequate. A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. White v. Martinez, 359 So.2d 7, 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). After careful consideration of plaintiffs arguments, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the new trial motion. See Griffis v. Hill, 230 So.2d 143, 145 (Fla.1969). This ruling moots the cross-appeal.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Schaller v. KMart Corp., 631 So. 2d 380, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1004, 1994 WL 45111 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).
631 So. 2d 380 (Schaller v. KMart Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bradshaw v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.
714 So. 2d 620 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)