From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bailey v. Lloyd

Supreme Court of Florida, Division A
Jan 16, 1953
62 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1953)

Opinion

December 16, 1952. Rehearing Denied January 16, 1953.

Paul T. Douglas and J. Luther Drew, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Phil O'Connell, West Palm Beach, for appellees.


The appellant has failed to make the strong showing which is required of her to persuade this Court to reverse the trial judge's order granting a new trial. The granting or denying of motion for a new trial rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge and a presumption of correctness attaches to his order.

We have repeatedly held that it requires a much stronger showing to reverse the trial judge when he has granted a motion for new trial than it does to reverse his order when it is one denying a new trial.

Affirmed upon authority of Mead v. Bentley, Fla. 61 So.2d 428, Martin v. Stone, Fla., 51 So.2d 33, Dent v. Margaret Ann Super Markets, Fla., 52 So.2d 130 and Florida Coastal Theaters, Inc., v. Belflower, 159 Fla. 741, 32 So.2d 738.

SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL, THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bailey v. Lloyd

Supreme Court of Florida, Division A
Jan 16, 1953
62 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1953)
Case details for

Bailey v. Lloyd

Case Details

Full title:BAILEY v. LLOYD ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Florida, Division A

Date published: Jan 16, 1953

Citations

62 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1953)

Citing Cases

Ward v. Hopkins

It is well settled that the granting or denying of a motion for a new trial rests in the sound judicial…

Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth

See: North v. State, Fla. 1952, 65 So.2d 77; Clary v. Blondel, 178 Iowa 101, 159 N.W. 604; 66 C.J.S. New…