State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lehto
This text of 388 So. 2d 1095 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lehto) 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.
Opinion
Appellants contend the trial court erred in setting aside the jury verdict for appellants and granting a new trial. Based upon our consideration of the record and briefs of counsel, we hold that appellants have failed to successfully assume the heavy burden which exists when one contends the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a motion for new trial. Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Weems v. Dawson, 352 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Bullard v. Canale, 260 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
388 So. 2d 1095, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-v-lehto-fladistctapp-1980.