Uniroyal Tire Co. v. Trujillo

757 So. 2d 547, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4305, 2000 WL 368425
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 12, 2000·No. No. 3D96-1411·Published

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

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

757 So. 2d 547 (Uniroyal Tire Co. v. Trujillo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown v. Estate of Stuckey
749 So. 2d 490 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)
Uniroyal Tire Co. v. Trujillo
711 So. 2d 606 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Trujillo v. Uniroyal Tire Co.
753 So. 2d 1256 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)