IRVING WALTMAN AND ALBERT COHEN, PETITIONERS,
v.
PRIME MOTOR INNS, INC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed that appellate review of the judgment was precluded by the missing transcript but vacated the daily contempt fine due to a lack of evidence of damages.
Appellate review of the judgment was precluded by the missing transcript, and the daily contempt fine was vacated due to a lack of evidence of damages.
Following a non-jury trial, the court found the parties were partners and ordered Balzam to allow Cohen access to the business. Balzam refused, leadin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandate Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
By petition for writ of certiorari Walt-man and Cohen seek review of the .trial court’s order granting a new trial. We have jurisdiction. See Jones v. Knuck, 388 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Robinson v. Gale, 380 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
We grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order under review upon a holding that the trial court’s order granting a new trial constitutes an unauthorized deviation from this court’s mandate issued in a prior appeal in this cause, Waltman v. Prime Motor Inns, Inc., 446 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (Waltman I). In Walt-man I, this court directed the trial court to reinstate jury verdicts in favor of petitioners Waltman and Cohen. Upon remand, Prime Motor Inns, Inc. (Prime) obtained a ruling on an alternative motion for new trial which had been rendered moot by the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict. Prime neither requested nor received permission from this court to revisit previously filed motions. The trial court lacked authority to deviate from our mandate by granting the motion for new trial. It was limited by our direction to the task of reinstating the verdicts. See Robinson; Stirling v. Sapp, 238 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Cf. Navarro v. City of Miami, 402 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (trial court may rule upon earlier motion for new trial where appellate court specifically directs trial court to do so upon remand).
The order under review is quashed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate the jury verdicts in accordance with our prior mandate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Weggies Banana Boat, 576 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…r requested from this court. In short, “[t]he trial court lacked authority to deviate from our mandate by granting the motion for new trial. It was limited by our direction to the task of reinstating the verdicts.” Waltman v. Prime Motor Inns, Inc., 461 So. 2d 120, 120-121 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984). See also Stirling v. Sapp, 238 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). We recognize, of course, that the trial court’s sua sponte order impeaching the jury verdict foreclosed Weggies from seeking review of the verdict in Weggie…
-
Kahn v. Cooper, 583 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…nt of September 22, 1989, and the supplementary order of April 26, 1991. Kahn v. Cooper, 583 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Accordingly, certiorari is granted and the order of August 15, 1991, is quashed. Wattman v. Prime Motor [*1117] Inns Inc., 461 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 472 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1985); Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 452 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Jones v. Knuck, 388 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Upon any further refusal or delay of the trial court in adher…
-
Atkin v. Tittle AND Tittle, 767 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…o, but then almost immediately vacated that judgment and granted the defendants a new trial. This was improper. The trial court lacked authority to deviate from our mandate by granting the motion for new trial. See Waltman v. Prime Motor Inns, Inc., 461 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 472 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1985). Since we have determined that it is improper for the lower court to entertain a motion for new trial after this court has entered its mandate, the filing of the unauthorized motion for new t…
Authorities Cited
- Navarro v. City OF Miami, 402 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Jones v. The Honorable Francis X. Knuck, 388 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Nilza Kallos, M.D. v. Blouin, 380 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Waltman v. Prime Motor Inns, Inc., 446 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Stirling v. Sapp, 238 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)