Malec v. Halter

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 16, 1968

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1968-12-16

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 1976

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““At common law, the prevailing party plaintiff could not seek review of a favorable verdict. This has been modified in this State by judicial rulings. Paul v. Kanter, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 402 ; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 10. A condition permitting a plaintiff [recovering a favorable verdict] to seek appellate review is that a motion for new trial be addressed to the trial court urging inadequacy of the verdict. Guarria v. State Road Department of Florida, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 5 ; Paul v. Kanter, supra. * * ””

quoted by 1 later decision, including O'Leary v. Watson

Relies on Paul v. Kanter · 117 So. 2d 5 - Guarria v. State Road Department of Florida

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1968-12-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Appellant [plaintiff in the trial court] seeks review of a favorable jury verdict, contending that the trial judge committed error when he refused to permit medical bills [incurred as a result of an alleged accident] to be introduced by the plaintiff, who was a married woman.

¶2At common law, the prevailing party plaintiff could not seek review of a favorable verdict. This has been modified in this State by judicial rulings. Paul v. Kanter, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 402; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 10. A condition permitting a plaintiff [recovering a favorable verdict] to seek appellate review is that a motion for new trial be addressed to the trial court urging inadequacy of the verdict. Guarria v. State Road Department of Florida, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 5; Paul v. Kanter, supra. This was not done in the instant case and, therefore, we do not disturb the verdict and final judgment here under review.

¶3Affirmed.