Wagner v. Thigpen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wagner v. Thigpen

190 So. 2d 612

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 6, 1966

DocketNo. H-351

StatusPublished

This text of 190 So. 2d 612 (Wagner v. Thigpen) 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

Wagner v. Thigpen, 190 So. 2d 612 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, who were the losing plaintiffs in an automobile negligence case, complain of the lower court’s action in denying their motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, to wit, the testimony of an eyewitness who could not have been found with due diligence up to the time of trial.

We do not believe that the testimony of this witness necessarily demonstrates that the defendants’ witnesses gave false testimony, and appellants have failed clearly to show that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the proffered evidence was not such as would probably change the result reached by the jury in the original trial if a new trial were to be granted.

Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., JOHNSON and SACK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, who were the losing plaintiffs in an automobile negligence case, complain of the lower court’s action in denying their motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, to wit, the testimony of an eyewitness who could not have been found with due diligence up to the time of trial.

We do not believe that the testimony of this witness necessarily demonstrates that the defendants’ witnesses gave false testimony, and appellants have failed clearly to show that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the proffered evidence was not such as would probably change the result reached by the jury in the original trial if a new trial were to be granted.

Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., JOHNSON and SACK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 2d 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagner-v-thigpen-fladistctapp-1966.