ALBERT WINNEMORE, APPELLANT,
v.
CHESLEY V. MORTON, APPELLEE
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 appellate court affirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff in a suit on a promissory note because the defendant failed to preserve the issue of evidentiary sufficiency for appeal by not moving for a directed verdict or a new trial.
No, the defendant did not properly preserve the issue for appellate review because he failed to make either a timely motion for a directed verdict or a motion for a new trial.
“Defendant must make either a timely motion for directed verdict, 6551 Collins Avenue Corp. v. Millen, Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 337, or a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, Ruth v. Sorensen, Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 10, and properly assign as error the denial of such motion, if he wishes to preserve the right to appellate review of the weight and sufficiency of the evidence.”
Establishes the procedural requirements for preserving an evidentiary sufficiency issue for appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, Albert Winnemore, was sued on a promissory note and suffered an adverse jury verdict. He appealed, challenging the weight and sufficien…
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 Motion For Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, defendant below, suffered an adverse jury verdict in a suit on a promissory note, and raises on this appeal the question of the weight and sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant did not move for a directed verdict at any time during the trial nor did he file a motion for a new trial. Defendant must make either a timely motion for directed verdict, 6551 Collins Avenue Corp. v. Millen, Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 337, or a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, Ruth v. Sorensen, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 10, and properly assign as error the denial of such motion, if he wishes to preserve the right to appellate review of the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Having made neither a timely motion for directed verdict nor a motion for new trial, defendant cannot question the legal sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. City of Pompano Beach, Florida v. Edwards, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 144.
The judgment is affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nordyne, Inc. v. Fla. Mobile Home Supply, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…eight of the evidence. Therefore, it has, likewise, failed to preserve that issue for review. See, e.g., Ruth v. Sorensen, 104 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1958); Southern American Fire Ins. Co. v. Rinzler, 324 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Winnemore v. Morton, 214 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Mr. Land, Inc. v. Rabinowitz, 134 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Had Nordyne preserved its right to challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support the claims for fraud and interference with business relationship…
-
J.T.A. Factors, Inc. v. Philcon Servs., Inc., 820 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…522 So. 2d 902, 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Nordyne, Inc. v. Florida Mobile Home Supply, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); see also Williams v. Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co., 567 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Winnemore v. Morton, 214 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). Since J.T.A. moved for a new trial in the trial court and asserted in the motion that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, J.T.A.’s right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence has been a…
-
Thomas v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 424 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…For this reason, we do not decide whether, as Lumbermens contends, appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence is precluded by Thomas’ failure to move for a new trial or directed verdict and receive a ruling thereon. See Winnemore v. Morton, 214 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) and cases cited. The trial transcript reveals that after the verdict was read, Thomas’ attorney “renewed” his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, an impossibility since no such motion had earlier been made, nor could…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 6551 Collins Ave. Corp. v. Beverlee Millen, 104 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1958)
- Myrtle R. Ruth and her husband v. Sorensen, 104 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1958)
- City OF Pompano Beach v. Edwards, 129 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)