Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions

134 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Silverberg v. Paine
  710 F.2d 678· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 104×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial, as the jury's intent to find for the plaintiff and award damages was clear despite some confusion in the verdict forms, and the damages instruction was proper under Florida law f
• McKINLEY v. City OF Eloy
  705 F.2d 1110· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-09 ·cited 103×
  The court held that a probationary public employee's speech on matters of public concern is protected by the First Amendment, and dismissal based on such speech, even without a property interest in the job, entitles the employee to reinstatement and damages.
• United States v. Alessio
  528 F.2d 1079· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-14 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the government's refusal to seek immunity for defense witnesses did not deny the defendant due process, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• McMillan v. Nelson
  5 So. 2d 867· Fla.· 1942-01-16 ·cited 89×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's grant of a new trial in a guest passenger negligence case, holding that the trial verdict for the plaintiff was not supported by a preponderance of evidence regarding gross negligence, and rejecting the plaintiff's constitutional
• Jules Link and Solomon Katz v. Mercedes-Benz OF N. Am., Inc.
  788 F.2d 918· 3d Cir.· 1986-04-16 ·cited 86×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury verdict or evidentiary rulings, except for a minor point regarding class composition.
• Marcel Verbraeken v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  881 F.2d 1041· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 76×
  The court affirmed the denial of Westinghouse's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial, but remanded for the district court to explain its denial of Mr. Verbraeken's requested supplemental relief.
• Reams v. Blanche Vaughn and Herman Vaughn
  435 So. 2d 879· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-07-07 ·cited 57×
  The trial court granted defendants' motion for directed verdict and, alternatively, ordered a new trial in a fraud and misrepresentation case, despite a jury verdict for the plaintiff. The appellate court reversed, holding that evidence supported the plaintiff's fraud claim and t
• Ryan v. United States
  191 F.2d 779· D.C. Cir.· 1951-07-26 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a new trial despite private conversations between the prosecuting attorney and jurors, as the presumption of prejudice was rebutted by evidence of harmlessness and the judge's careful inquiry.
• United States v. Santiago
  837 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-25 ·cited 41×
  The court held that searches at the Atlanta airport were conducted at the functional equivalent of the border and thus required no reasonable suspicion, and that statements made by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy were admissible under the co-conspirator exceptio
• E. L. Farmer & Co. v. Hooks
  239 F.2d 547· 10th Cir.· 1956-11-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances, and the jury's findings on contributory negligence and assumption of risk were supported by the evidence.
• Peterman v. Indian Motorcycle Co.
  216 F.2d 289· 1st Cir.· 1954-10-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a notice of appeal from a final judgment brings up for review errors in the judgment, and a separate appeal from an order denying a post-judgment motion for a new trial is only necessary if the motion presents new matters not before the court at judgment.
• Peteet v. DOW Chem. Co.
  868 F.2d 1428· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony linking herbicide exposure to cancer and in denying motions for a new trial and venue transfer.
• Ligman v. Jeffrey Tardiff, M.D.
  466 So. 2d 1125· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-03-19 ·cited 34×
  The trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant after a jury awarded damages, but did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial.
• Winton Lemon v. Bank Lines, Ltd.
  656 F.2d 110· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district judge improperly granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the jury's finding of negligence was supported by evidence under the standard established in Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos. However, the grant of a new trial w
• Steiner v. United States
  229 F.2d 745· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that counts 8-11 of the indictment were fatally defective for failing to specify the law violated by the importations, but count 1, charging conspiracy, was sufficient. The court also found no prejudice from a juror's conversation with a witness.
• Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Vroom
  480 So. 2d 108· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-11-01 ·cited 31×
  Crown Cork & Seal Company appeals from a trial court's order granting a new trial on compensatory damages after a jury verdict awarded $40,000 to one plaintiff but nothing to others for injuries allegedly caused by contamination from hazardous waste disposal. The appellate court
• Woods Exploration & Producing Co., Inc. v. Aluminum Co. OF Am.
  509 F.2d 784· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-13 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments, finding that prior rulings established the law of the case, evidence was sufficient, and damage calculations were not impermissibly speculative.
• United States v. Kuzniar
  881 F.2d 466· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-07 ·cited 28×
  The majority held the district court abused its discretion in granting a new trial for counts 1-7 and erred in granting acquittal for counts 8-12, reinstating the jury verdict on all counts. The concurring judge dissents regarding counts 1-7 and argues for a new trial on counts 8
• Philon v. Rohan R. Reid
  602 So. 2d 648· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-07-10 ·cited 26×
  Dorothy and Willie Philon appealed a trial court order granting defendant Rohan Reid a new trial on damages alone, claiming the jury verdict was 'clearly excessive.' The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial judge violated procedural requirements by failing to state sp
• Kan. City Pub. Serv. Co. v. Shephard
  184 F.2d 945· 10th Cir.· 1950-10-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff's evidence was not so contrary to physical laws or established facts as to warrant overturning the trial court's finding of injury, nor was the plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
• Sosa v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc.
  435 So. 2d 821· Fla.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 25×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial judge properly exercised discretion in granting a new trial in a wrongful death case where the defendant's counsel improperly referenced workers' compensation benefits not in evidence during closing argument and the trial court failed t
• Crown Colony Distribs., Inc. v. United States Fire Ins. Co.
  510 F.2d 544· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-26 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the jury's finding that the insured deliberately set the fire, rendering discussion of concealment issues unnecessary.
• Harris v. Whiteman
  243 F.2d 563· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, as the evidence was not material to the lack of proven negligence.
• Worsham v. The City OF Pasadena
  881 F.2d 1336· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a plaintiff must be given an opportunity to prove that a municipality's policymakers absolutely delegated final policymaking authority to a subordinate official, even if positive law suggests otherwise, by demonstrating a custom or usage of abdicating review p
• Tidewater OIL Co. v. Waller
  302 F.2d 638· 10th Cir.· 1962-03-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Oklahoma Workmen's Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision, as interpreted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, did not preclude a suit for damages under foreign tort law, even when the injury occurred outside Oklahoma.
• Ouriana Goutis v. Express Transp., Inc.
  699 So. 2d 757· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-09-03 ·cited 20×
  Plaintiffs won a $1.8 million wrongful death jury verdict, but the trial court granted defendants' motion for a new trial based on allegedly improper comments made by plaintiffs' counsel during jury selection, opening statement, and closing argument. The appellate court reversed,
• United States v. Williams
  613 F.2d 573· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an ex parte communication between a juror and the judge, concerning the juror's social acquaintance with a defense character witness, was harmless error and did not warrant a new trial.
• Erle E. Peacock, Jr. v. Bd. OF Regents OF the Univs. & State Coll. OF Ariz.
  597 F.2d 163· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-02 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's orders vacating a jury verdict, granting partial summary judgment, and directing verdicts for defendants, finding no abuse of discretion or constitutional infirmities.
• Gallon v. The Lloyd-Thomas Co.
  261 F.2d 26· 8th Cir.· 1958-11-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the trial court's orders did not constitute a final decision, as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291, due to the granting of a new trial on some counts without an express determination under Rule 54(b).
• United States v. Conzemius
  611 F.2d 695· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the newly discovered evidence did not warrant a new trial and that the sentence could not be vacated based on alleged perjury without proof of prosecutorial knowledge.
• Stafford v. Perini Corp.
  475 F.2d 507· 1st Cir.· 1973-03-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict regarding the plaintiff's crew member status, negligence, and damages, and that the verdict was not excessive.
• United States v. Sposato
  446 F.2d 779· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-11 ·cited 18×
  A new trial is not warranted based on newly discovered evidence of a government witness's alleged misconduct if that misconduct has not resulted in a conviction and the evidence would only serve to impeach the witness's general credibility.
• Edwards v. United States
  361 F.2d 732· 8th Cir.· 1966-06-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, nor in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury regarding a witness's Fifth Amendment invocation.
• Silvia v. Zayre Corp.
  233 So. 2d 856· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-04-07 ·cited 17×
  Ronald Silvia sued Zayre Corporation for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution after being detained by store security officers on suspicion of shoplifting. A jury awarded him $18,000 in damages, but the trial judge granted the defendant's motion for new trial on the ground
• Walerowicz v. Hosang
  248 So. 3d 140· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-05-23 ·cited 16×
  The trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for directed verdict regarding past medical expenses because the plaintiff's testimony describing her treatment procedures and relating them to the accident injuries, combined with the surgeon's testimony and the medical bill
• Glenna Fisher v. Perez
  947 So. 2d 648· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-01-24 ·cited 16×
  Fisher appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for continuance when her sole medical expert, Dr. Piper, became unexpectedly unavailable due to post-surgical complications the day before trial in a personal injury lawsuit. The Third District reversed, finding the trial cour
• United States v. Firtel
  446 F.2d 1005· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a directed verdict for the government was proper because the taxpayer failed to present evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness of the Commissioner's tax assessment.
• W. Ralph Erwin and his wife v. Watson T. Chaney and his wife
  160 So. 2d 139· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-01-21 ·cited 16×
  In this negligence action arising from an automobile collision, the trial court granted a new trial on the issue of damages alone, finding the jury's award of $10,000 to Mrs. Chaney and $2,000 to Mr. Chaney inadequate given her serious injuries including loss of an eye. The appel
• Ireneo Racoma, Jr., M.D. v. Steffan L. Hannans
  978 So. 2d 873· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-04-16 ·cited 15×
• Lindner v. Durham Hosiery Mills, Inc.
  761 F.2d 162· 4th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act does not apply to securities transactions, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial on breach of fiduciary duty.
• Commercial Nat'l Bank v. Raines, III
  631 F.2d 563· 8th Cir.· 1980-09-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial and that sufficient evidence supported submitting the issues of negligent lookout and attractive nuisance to the jury.
• Bakery Assocs., Ltd. v. Chantal Rigaud and Robert Rigaud
  906 So. 2d 366· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The Mall appealed a trial court's grant of a motion for new trial based on allegedly improper comments made during defense counsel's closing argument. The appellate court reversed, holding that while some comments were improper, they were not sufficiently prejudicial and inflamma
• United States v. Underwood
  932 F.2d 1049· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government's inadvertent failure to disclose impeachment evidence was not material, newly discovered evidence did not warrant a new trial, and the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines without a jury determination of the offense's conti
• Medtronic Inc. v. Intermedics, Inc.
  799 F.2d 734· Fed. Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the C/D patent was not proven invalid and the R/S patent was invalid for obviousness.
• Tikalsky v. City OF Chicago
  687 F.2d 175· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on the reversal of a case that had minimal impact on the jury's deliberations and was not a basis for the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Leyba
  504 F.2d 441· 10th Cir.· 1974-10-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion, and the admission of defendant's height and weight was permissible. However, the imposition of separate penalties under different subsections of the Bank Robbery Act was improper.
• United States v. Craft
  421 F.2d 693· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
• Palmer v. United States
  340 F.2d 48· 5th Cir.· 1964-12-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the drugs moved in interstate commerce and that the defendant 'caused' the dispensing, and that the term 'dispense' was appropriately used. The denial of a new trial for alleged jury misconduct was not an abuse of discretio
• Naval v. United States
  278 F.2d 611· 9th Cir.· 1960-05-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's possession of heroin, unexplained, was sufficient evidence to authorize conviction under 21 U.S.C.A. § 174, and that various procedural errors alleged did not prejudice the defendant.
• UHL v. Echols Transfer Co. & Rufus Johnson
  238 F.2d 760· 5th Cir.· 1956-11-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying motions for a new trial, as alleged errors in counsel's conduct and evidentiary rulings were either harmless, provoked, or properly handled by the judge.