WAYNE AKERS AND HIS WIFE, KATHRYN J. AKERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., BILL HETLAND, PETER COOKE, KEN WALKER, RAYMOND MARIOTTI, R. H. KIRKPATRICK, THOMAS KELLY, CARL BRETZ AND ANTHONY UCELLINI, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Libel Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs in a libel action appeal from an order granting the defendants’ motion for new trial. Appellants contend that the order fails to sufficiently delineate the lower court’s reasons for granting a new trial and, further, that the reasons which are stated in the order are not supported by the record. We affirm.
In the order granting the new trial, the court lists three grounds for its decision. Admittedly, the first ground listed is a cursory statement that the verdict was rendered contrary to the law and the evidence. However, this finding is further amplified by the other two grounds listed in support of the granting of a new trial. In these latter two grounds, the court specifies how the jury’s verdict is inconsistent and how the court erred in permitting the jury to consider presumed damages. Consequently, in light of these specific findings, we have reviewed the record and have determined that no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated. See, Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (1980).
The order granting the new trial is affirmed.
MOORE, BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. Isidore Cohen and Miriam Cohen, 406 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…his discretion. If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. See Akers v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., et al., 386 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Staib v. Ferrari, Inc., 391 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980); Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Fairbanks, 400 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In arriving at its conclusion above to grant the motion, the Court noted: a. The jury in…
-
Albritton v. State, 769 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…hed that a confession is involuntary, a subsequent confession is presumed to be involuntary also unless it is clearly shown the “influences attendant upon [the] initial confession” were dissipated prior to the subsequent confession. Brewer v. State, 386 So. 2d 282, 236 (Fla.1980). In the present case, we conclude that the influence of Detective Petty’s promise to Ms. Albritton that she would not be prosecuted for a second-degree felony if she had been engaging in a religious ritual was not sufficiently dissip…
Authorities Cited
- Baptist Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1980)