A. P. KRIEGER, APPELLANT,
v.
ARRA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 reversed a jury verdict against the appellant, finding no competent evidence to support the award of compensatory or punitive damages. The court determined the trial judge abused his discretion by denying a motion for a new trial.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial because the record lacked competent evidence to sustain a verdict for compensatory damages, and therefore, also for punitive damages.
“The denial of such motion was assigned as error. This provides the basis for appellate review to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.”
Establishes the standard of review for the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant suffered an adverse jury verdict for both compensatory and punitive damages after a five-day trial. The appellant moved for a new trial,…
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, suffering an adverse jury verdict for both compensatory and punitive damages, sought a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The denial of such motion was assigned as error. This provides the basis for appellate review to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. Ruth v. Sorensen, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 10.
Although the record of this five-day trial is voluminous, our review of the same convinces us that the trial court did abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial because the record is devoid of any competent evidence to sustain a verdict against appellant for compensatory damages, much less punitive damages.
The judgment against appellant is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court with directions that the verdict be vacated and appellant awarded a new trial on all issues.
Reversed.
DOWNEY, JAMES C., Associate Judge, concurs.
WALDEN, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aara Constr. Co. v. Krieger, 234 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 227 So. 2d 57.…
-
Tucker v. State, 234 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 227 So. 2d 57.…
Authorities Cited
- Myrtle R. Ruth and her husband v. Sorensen, 104 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1958)