ESCA INVESTMENT, INC.
v.
TARRAZA
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on the defendant's violation of an in limine order, improper closing argument, and a jury's award of zero damages for future pain and suffering that is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
[1] A trial court's discretion to grant a new trial is broad and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse.
[2] An appellate court reviews an order granting a new trial for an abuse of discretion, applying a reasonableness test.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a trial court's discretion to grant a new trial is 'of such firmness that it would not be disturbed except on clear showing of abuse'”
Establishing the standard of review for new trial orders under Florida law
ESCA Investment, Inc., the defendant at trial, was found to have violated an in limine order during trial and made improper closing arguments. The jur…
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 Improper Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 4, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-39 Lower Tribunal No. 14-8415
________________
ESCA Investment, Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Alejandro Tarraza,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rodney Smith, Judge.
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., and Thomas A. Valdez (Tampa), David Tarlow (Fort Lauderdale) and Michael Wood (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.
Kawel PLLC, and Andrew Paul Kawel, for appellee.
Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
ESCA Investment, Inc., the defendant below, appeals from the trial court’s order granting a new trial upon motion filed by Alejandro Tarraza, plaintiff below.
The trial court granted the motion for new trial based upon the individual and cumulative effect of defendant’s violation of an order in limine, improper closing argument (properly preserved by defendant’s contemporaneous objection), and a determination that the jury’s award of zero damages for future pain and suffering was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Upon our consideration of the trial court’s careful and detailed seven-page order, and our own review of the record upon which the trial court based its determinations, we find no abuse of discretion. See Brown v. Estate of Stuckey,
749 So. 2d 490, 497-98 (Fla. 1999) (holding: “When reviewing the order granting a new trial, an appellate court must recognize the broad discretionary authority of the trial judge and apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion”); Castlewood Intern. Corp. v. LaFleur,
322 So. 2d 520, 522 (Fla. 1975) (observing: “Since at least 1962, it has been the law of Florida that a trial court’s discretion to grant a new trial is ‘of such firmness that it would not be disturbed except on clear showing of abuse . . . .’ Cloud v.
Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669, 672 (Fla. 1959). A heavy burden rests on appellants who seek to overturn such a ruling, and any abuse of discretion must be patent from the record”); Ryan v. Atlantic Fertilizer & Chem, Co., 515 So. 2d 324, 327 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1987) (holding that the burden is on appellant “to clearly or plainly show that there was a gross or palpable abuse of discretion” in trial court’s granting new trial).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rierson v. Deveau, 273 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Rupert B. Brown v. The Est. OF A.P. Stuckey, Sr., 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999)
- Castlewood Int'l Corp. v. LaFLEUR, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1975)
- Ryan v. Atl. Fertilizer & Chem. Co., 515 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)