Seaman v. Zank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Seaman v. Zank

385 So. 2d 1, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16209

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Seaman v. Zank. Read the opinion of the Court — 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14985 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 21, 1980·No. No. 78-425·Published

Opinion

MOORE, Judge.

This cause is affirmed. See Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980); Weems v. Dawson, 352 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1221 (Fla.1978). Although we would prefer a more definitive rule, we cannot say that reasonable men would not differ as to the action taken by the trial judge in granting a motion for new trial. Therefore, the appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

LETTS, C. J., and SPENCER C. CROSS, Associate Judge, concur.

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

MOORE, Judge.

This cause is affirmed. See Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980); Weems v. Dawson, 352 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1221 (Fla.1978). Although we would prefer a more definitive rule, we cannot say that reasonable men would not differ as to the action taken by the trial judge in granting a motion for new trial. Therefore, the appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

LETTS, C. J., and SPENCER C. CROSS, Associate Judge, concur.

Seaman v. Zank, 385 So. 2d 1, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16209 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

385 So. 2d 1 (Seaman v. Zank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related