Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

172 So. 2d 260

State v. Strickland

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 26, 1965

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1965-02-26

Relies on 110 So. 2d 669 - Cloud v. Fallis · 139 So. 2d 495 - Morin v. Halpern · Simpson v. Clay

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1965-02-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 1999

1 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

701965197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The state appeals an order granting the defendant a new trial. Such motion is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose ruling thereon will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. Gelfo v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 31; Huffman v. Heagy, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 907; Morin v. Halpern, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 495. In the present case the heavy burden resting on the appellant has not been sustained.

¶2The trial judge, having observed the witnesses, the jury and respective counsel, was best positioned to rule on the motion — and it is axiomatic that a stronger showing is required to upset an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial. Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 494; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669.

¶3Affirmed.

WHITE, Acting C. J., ANDREWS, J., and RAWLS, JOHN S., Associate Judge, concur.
/172/so2d/260 · .json · Public domain