Uniroyal Tire Co. v. Trujillo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Uniroyal Tire Co. v. Trujillo

757 So. 2d 547, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4305, 2000 WL 368425

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 2000

DocketNo. 3D96-1411

StatusPublished

This text of 757 So. 2d 547 (Uniroyal Tire Co. v. Trujillo) 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

Uniroyal Tire Co. v. Trujillo, 757 So. 2d 547, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4305, 2000 WL 368425 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal recurs upon a mandate issued by the Supreme Court of Florida on March 16, 2000. We vacate our previous opinion rendered on May 13, 1998, and recorded at 711 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), and conform in all respects to the opinion of the Supreme Court recorded at 753 So.2d 1256 (Fla.2000).

As directed by that opinion and mandate, we now apply the principles announced in Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490 (Fla.1999), to the central contention raised by the defendants in this appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting an additur and/or new trial based upon its findings that the verdict was inconsistent and fundamentally improper. Accordingly, we affirm the order under review and remand the matter to the trial court for a new trial.

We adhere to our earlier determination that the plaintiffs cross-appeal is without merit.

Affirmed.

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