W. S. AVRIETT, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF D. D. MCCLAMIE, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
C. W. OSBORNE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's order granting a new trial. The appellate court found no errors in the lower court's decision after reviewing the record and arguments.
No, the Circuit Court did not err in granting a new trial.
“This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record upon writ of error taken under the statute to the order of the Circuit Court granting a new trial herein and the briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Couft that there is no error in the said order.”
Describes the procedural posture and the court's initial review.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case came before the Florida Supreme Court on a writ of error challenging an order from the Circuit Court that granted a new trial. The parties su…
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 New Trial Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record upon writ of error taken under the statute to the order of the Circuit Court granting a new trial herein and the briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Couft that there is no error in the said order. It is, therefore, considered, ordered, and adjudged by the Court that the said order be and is hereby affirmed. See Lockhart v. Butt-Landstreet, 91 Fla. 497, 107 So. 641; Suttles v. Burbridge, 91 Fla. 273, 107 So. 646; Phillips v. Lowenstein, 91 Fla. 89, 107 So. 350.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Phillips v. Lowenstein, 91 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1926)
- Lockhart v. Butt-Landstreet, 91 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1926)
- Suttles v. Phoebe N. Burbridge, 91 Fla. 273 (Fla. 1926)
- Awning v. Nichols Ullendorff Realty Co., 91 Fla. 320 (Fla. 1926)