State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lehto

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lehto

388 So. 2d 1095, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17367

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 8, 1980·No. No. 79-1696·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

LETTS, C. J., and DOWNEY and AN-STEAD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

LETTS, C. J., and DOWNEY and AN-STEAD, JJ., concur.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lehto, 388 So. 2d 1095, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17367 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

388 So. 2d 1095 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lehto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related