CopyCited 68 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 155 Fla. 114, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 484
...Judgment was entered upon the verdict. The defendant filed its motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment. The trial judge entered an order granting a new trial. The appellants have entered their appeal from the order granting new trial pursuant to Section 59.04 Florida Statutes 1941....
CopyCited 33 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 57 A.L.R. 2d 1186
...An appellate jurisdictional question is involved and such questions may be considered even though not raised by the parties. In actions at law appeals lie only from final judgments except in certain limited situations defined by statute. See Sections 59.02-59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. One of the exceptions is that "the party aggrieved" may appeal from the entry of an order granting a new trial. Section 59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
...an appeal can be taken to secure review of the denial of the directed verdict. In the absence of a final judgment to support the appeal, the order on the motion for a directed verdict in an of itself (unlike the order granting a new trial because of Section 59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.) cannot constitute the basis for appeal....
...In applying this opinion as a precedent, however, they should be examined. Applying the foregoing rules to the situation before us, we are, therefore, led to the conclusion that the appeal of Mrs. Goff and Mrs. Boone from the order granting the motion for new trial was properly perfected pursuant to provisions of Section 59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and that when the motion for new trial filed by the Railroad was granted, it had the effect of vacating any final judgment theretofore entered and completely revitalizing the entire cause for further proceedings in the form of a new trial....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...ppeal [1] and the decisions of this Court in Leonetti v. Boone,
74 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1954) and Wolfe v. City of Miami,
114 Fla. 238,
154 So. 196 (1934). The issue presented involves the scope of a district court's review in an appeal taken pursuant to Section
59.04, Florida Statutes (1975), which provides: *111 " Appeal from order granting new trial....
...Bowen then moved for a directed verdict or in the alternative for a new trial. The trial judge denied Bowen's motion for a directed verdict, but granted a new trial because "the preponderance of the evidence and the manifest justice of the case clearly" required it. Willard appealed to the district court pursuant to Section 59.04, citing as error the failure of the trial judge to state that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence....
...The effect of this action, however, is to forestall forever any appellate review of the denial of Bowen's motion for a directed verdict. In Leonetti and Wolfe we held that an appellate court may not consider the question of a directed verdict on review of an order granting a new trial taken under the predecessor of Section 59.04....
...Both have been superseded by the Florida Appellate Rules to the extent that they prevent the determination of issues which are ripe for appellate review in a unified appeal. In Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc.,
297 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1974), we held that appeals taken pursuant to Section
59.04 are not interlocutory appeals governed by Florida Appellate Rule 4.2, and that Section
59.04 had been adopted as a rule of appellate procedure pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 1.4. In so ruling we relied upon and cited with approval the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Seigel v. Solomon,
201 So.2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). There it was held that an appeal under Section
59.04 should be treated as an appeal of a final judgment for the purposes of supersedeas under Florida Appellate Rules 5.1 and 5.2. It is consistent with the conversion of Section
59.04 from a statute to a court-adopted rule of procedure to now hold that appeals taken from new trial orders shall be treated as appeals from final judgments to the extent possible, and that the appellate courts of this state have the authority to deal with other appealable issues....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...curiae. ADKINS, Chief Justice. This cause is before us on appeal from a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at
283 So.2d 68 (Fla.App.4th, 1973). The District Court in its opinion passed upon the validity of Fla. Stat. §
59.04, F.S.A., giving this Court jurisdiction under Fla....
...jury verdict in a personal injury case. Appellees moved for a new trial, which was granted on the issue of liability only, whereupon appellants appealed to the District Court. That court granted appellees' motion to dismiss, holding that Fla. Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A....
...(which authorizes interlocutory appeals in only certain cases, not including orders granting new trials) and that, since Rule 1.4, F.A.R. provides that all statutes in conflict with those rules are superseded by them, Rule 4.2 governs and Fla. Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., is invalid. We disagree and hereby reverse the holding of the District Court for the reasons set out below. We have carefully considered this case, together with other case authority construing Fla. Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., including Marley v....
...1971); Seigel v. Solomon,
201 So.2d 501 (Fla.App.3d, 1967), affirmed
207 So.2d 79; and Means v. Douglas,
110 So.2d 88 (Fla.App.1st, 1959). This Court has approved the holding that an order granting a new trial is a substantive right given by Fla. Stat. §
59.04, F.S.A., and is not interlocutory in nature. Seigel v. Solomon, supra . Further, it has been held that Fla. Stat. §
59.04, F.S.A., confers a right to appeal which creates an exception to the general rule that appeals at law lie only from final judgments. Means v. Douglas, supra . We conclude that this present appeal is not an interlocutory one and that Fla. Stat. §
59.04, F.S.A., does not conflict with Rule 4.2, F.A.R....
...ve date ... these rules shall supersede all conflicting rules and statutes. All statutes not superseded hereby or in conflict herewith shall remain in effect as rules promulgated by the Supreme Court." Therefore, we hold that, inasmuch as Fla. Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., does not conflict with Rule 4.2(a), F.A.R., it is not superseded and that, pursuant to Rule 1.4, F.A.R., the statute has been adopted as a rule promulgated by this Court....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...ederal trial court, under Rule 59 of the Federal *14 Rules of Civil Procedure, even though no motion for directed verdict or for judgment in accordance with such motion has been made under Rule 50. As stated by Moore in his Federal Practice, 2d Ed., § 59.04(5), p....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 40 A.L.R. 2d 1281, 1952 Fla. LEXIS 1674
...order a new trial. Its order may, however, be considered as the equivalent of such an order, and the following question then arises: Is an "order" of a new trial pursuant to the above-quoted provision of Rule 40(c) appealable under the provisions of Section 59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.? Section 59.04 reads as follows: "Upon the entry of an order granting a new trial, the party aggrieved may, without *540 waiting for final judgment, prosecute an appeal to the proper appellate court, which, if the cause be reversed, may direct that final judgment be entered in the trial court for the party obtaining the verdict, * * *." (Emphasis supplied.) By its very terms, Section 59.04 has no application in those cases where a new trial is ordered pursuant to the above-quoted provisions of Rule 40(c)....
...* * * A court is ineffectual to grant what it lacks the power to withhold." We hold, then, that an order denying a motion for entry of a judgment in accordance with a motion for directed verdict made and entered after a mistrial, is not appealable under the provisions of Section 59.04, even though such order expressly provides for a new trial....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1957 Fla. App. LEXIS 571
...of the jury. The trial court's order denying a new trial as to the issue of liability is affirmed. STURGIS, C.J., and THOMAS, ELWYN, A.J., concur. NOTES [1] Brinson v. Howard, Fla. 1954,
71 So.2d 172. [2] Section 59.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. [3] Section
59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3772, 2004 WL 573900
...ental error. Initially, we note that the circuit court's conclusion that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the trial court's order granting the motion for new trial was incorrect. The circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal pursuant to section 59.04, Florida Statutes (2002)....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Plaintiff's motion for new trial was granted as to the third party and denied as to the employer on the ground that its liability to plaintiff was exclusively under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The third party tort-feasor appealed from the grant of the new trial under § 59.04, F.S.A., and plaintiff "cross-appealed" from the denial of the motion for new trial as to the employer....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1498
...Next, we must determine whether this erroneous admission of collateral crime evidence was harmless error. As an appellate court, we are permitted to reverse a judgment only if "after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice." § 59.04, Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1951 Fla. LEXIS 930
...Subsequently, a final judgment against Plunkett and in favor of Florida Power was entered, including a judgment for Florida Power for its costs in the suit. Hillsboro has appealed from the order granting a new trial of Plunkett's claim against it, as authorized by Section 59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...nds on which it was granted. See Ebersole v. Tepperman, supra. The order is reversed with directions to enter an order consistent with the verdict. Reversed. HORTON, C.J., and PEARSON, J., concur. NOTES [1] Appeals from such orders are allowed under § 59.04, Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...ase of Means v. Douglas,
110 So.2d 88 (Fla.App. 1st, 1959). In Means the District Court of Appeal for the First District permitted the plaintiff to appeal from an order granting a new trial on the issue of damages only, pursuant to the provisions of Section
59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. We think there is conflict between the case sub judice and the Means case. Section
59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides: "Upon the entry of an order granting a new trial, the party aggrieved may, without waiting for final judgment, prosecute an appeal to the proper appellate court which, if the cause be reversed, may d...
...edicto be made and prevail." It is conceded by the petitioner that the trial court's order for new trial on the issue of liability is not a final judgment, but she asserts that she has a right of appeal from the order under the express provisions of Section 59.04, supra, and that the decision of the District Court of Appeal below is in direct conflict with the decision in Means, supra....
...Consequently, time and expense, as well as judicial labor, are conserved if the issue of liability in such cases is first determined. And, a party who is aggrieved by order of the trial court granting a new trial on the issue of liability should not be penalized by a strained construction of Section 59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which would deny its application to an order granting a new trial on the issue of liability, but permit it on the issue of damages....
...rties " and on all or a part of the issues." (Emphasis supplied). The rule providing for bifurcated trials and the rule providing for the granting of new trials on part of the issues are consonant with the salutary purpose designed to be effected by Section 59.04, supra....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Insofar as the defendant was concerned it was not, because it determined only the issue of liability, thus leaving further judicial labor for the court. See Slatcoff v. Dezen, Fla. 1954,
72 So.2d 800 and cases cited therein. Therefore, if the defendant-appellant is to appeal he must find his authority under §
59.04 Fla....
...But the correctness of an order of the trial court denying a motion for new trial can only be assigned upon an appeal from the final judgment. Koch v. State Road Department of Florida, Fla. 1958,
106 So.2d 426 and authority therein cited. The plaintiff-cross-appellant had authority to appeal the above quoted order under §
59.04 Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...oper appellate court, which, if the cause be reversed, may direct that final judgment be entered in the trial court for the party obtaining the verdict, unless motion in arrest of judgment or for judgment non obstante veredicto be made and prevail." § 59.04 Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ifying that order as it pertains to Paragraph #8 of the complaint and Paragraph #8 shall be considered as initially filed by the plaintiff in the complaint filed herein. * * *" While the right to appeal from an order granting new trial is granted by § 59.04, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Even if it is assumed that the trial court erred in denying the preemptive instruction, this court is not permitted to reverse the verdict of the jury unless the appellant makes it appear that the alleged error resulted in a miscarriage of justice, Section 59.04(1), F.S....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Maloney, Jr., of Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee-American National Bank Building. Douglas M. Carlton, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees-Aztec Sales, Inc., and Maccari Building and Construction Corp. WALDEN, Judge. ON MOTION TO DISMISS We are squarely faced with an assault upon the validity of F.S. 59.04, F.S.A., Laws of 1971, which provides: "59.04 Appeal from order granting new trial....
...We record that, even with the dismissal we now command, the rights of the parties will ultimately be made subject or available for appellate review upon entry of final judgment and full appeal. Now concluding, it is our opinion that the provisions of F.S. 59.04, F.S.A., supra, are salutary and it is our respectful recommendation that Rule 4.2, F.A.R., be amended to allow interlocutory appeals from orders granting new trials in whole or in part....
...UPON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR CERTIFICATION Appellants apparently concede that the order granting a new trial to defendants upon the question of liability is an interlocutory order [1] and that Rule 4.2, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., prohibits interlocutory appeals from such orders. Thus, of course, Section 59.04, F.S....
...e and complete remedy available to appellants to appeal after final judgment. 1 Malloy, Fla. Appellate Practice & Procedure, § 12.01 (1966); Florida Civil Practice After Trial, § 17.18 (1966). Having now responded, we adhere to our opinion holding Section 59.04, F.S....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...The trial court made an order for remittitur of $4,575, or in the alternative for a new trial. The plaintiffs declined to enter the remittitur and appealed. An order to remit part of a verdict which is considered by the trial court to be excessive, with the alternative of a new trial, is appealable under § 59.04, Fla....
...Therefore, the order for the remittitur, and in the alternative for new trial, was error and an abuse of discretion (Price v. Jordan, Fla.App. 1959,
115 So.2d 444, 447) and is reversed, and the cause is remanded for entry of judgment on the verdict, as provided for in §
59.04, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6635
...Appellant has filed his motion to strike the cross-assignments of error filed by appellee on the ground that they are improper and impermissible as a matter of law. This interlocutory appeal is brought by appellant pursuant to the authority of F.S. Section 59.04, F.S.A., which permits an appeal by the party aggrieved of an order granting a new trial without waiting for final judgment to be rendered in the trial court for the party obtaining the verdict....
...llant's motion to strike the cross-assignments of error filed herein by appellee is well taken and is hereby granted. Such cross-assignments of error are hereby stricken and held for naught. RAWLS, C.J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur. NOTES [1] § 59.04, F.S....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1368
agree with the contention made by the appellee. Section
59.04, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., provides that
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...he plaintiff where the defendant has, by a sufficient plea, denied that the signature is his. 5 U.L.A., § 23 and cases collected in note 223. Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed. HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur. . § 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4327
...ellate court, which, if the cause bo reversed, may direet that final judgment be entered in the trial court for the party obtaining the verdict, unless motion in arrest of judgment or for judgment non obstante vere-dicto be made and prevail.” F.S. Section 59.04, F.S.A....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...ng of a notice of trial within the time prescribed by law.” The nature and effect of the above order was to grant a new trial. No ground was given by the trial court for rejecting the verdict and allowing a new trial. The order is appealable under § 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1346
set aside and a new trial is hereby ordered." Section
59.04, F.S.A., provides for review by the Supreme
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 3027
...Tepperman, Fla.1953,
65 So.2d 564 ; Means v. Douglas, Fla.App. 1959,
110 So.2d 88 ; Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., Fla.App.1960,
122 So.2d 240 . The order appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions, as provided for in said §
59.04, id., “that final judgment be entered in the trial court for the party obtaining the verdict, unless motion in arrest of judgment or for judgment non obstante veredicto be made and prevail.” Reversed and remanded....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...The appel-lee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, contending that same was untimely filed, as § 73.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides a 30-day time limit for seeking review of final judgments in eminent domain proceedings. The appellants contend that the appeal [being authorized by the provisions of § 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.], having been filed within 60 days of the entry of the order granting a new trial, was timely notwithstanding the 30-day limitation contained in § 73.14, Fla. Stat. It appears that the motion to dismiss should be granted. The purpose of enactment of § 59.04, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., 1 and its predecessors was to permit an aggrieved party, at his option to seek review of an order granting a new trial by “prosecute an appeal to the proper appellate court” without awaiting final judgment; or he could abide the outcome of the new trial and then file, if an aggrieved party, an appeal from said final judgment and assign as error the entry of an order granting a new trial. Section 59.04, supra, merely created the right of review “to the proper appellate court” of an order not previously appealable as such....
...The appellants have shown us nothing to the contrary and it appears that it would be the better rule if the time for seeking appellate review was uniform in a given proceeding. Therefore, we hold that the time for seeking review of an order granting a new trial [which is authorized by § 59.04, supra] cannot be more nor less than that provided by the applicable statute for seeking review of the final decision in the cause....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17250
...ges only and appellant assails that order for its failure to grant a new trial on the issue of punitive damages as well. A party “aggrieved” by an order granting a new trial may bring an appeal from that order without waiting for final judgment. § 59.04, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 2876
CARROLL, Judge. This appeal is taken under § 59.-04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., by the plaintiffs Betty D. Floyd
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...e and $27,500 to the husband. The defendants’ motion for a new trial was granted, on the ground that the verdict was so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court. 1 On this appeal, taken by the plaintiffs from the order granting new trial (§ 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.), we are confined to consideration of the merit of the ground stated by the trial judge (§ 59.07(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2334, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15707
...We are aware of no change in the law since the Averill decision that would affect the outcome. Appellant contends that an order granting a motion for rehearing either is a final order and thus immediately appealable, or is the equivalent of an order for a new trial, governed by section
59.04, Florida Statutes (1983), and post-Averill revisions of Rules 9.130(a)(4) and 9.140(c)(1)(C), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, as explicated by In re Emergency Amendments to Rules of Appellate Procedure,
381 So.2d 1370 (Fla.1980)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...The appellee filed cross-assignments of error addressed to rulings of the trial judge during the progress of the trial. These cross-assignments may not be considered under the limited scope of review permitted by Section 59.07(4) Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and are, therefore, stricken sua sponte. It is so ordered. Affirmed. . Section 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 151 Fla. 847, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 1276
...laintiff in $2,350.00. The trial court by order granted a new trial, the presiding judge being of the opinion that the evidence did not prove “gross negligence.” Writ of error was taken to the order under the statute, Section 4615 (2905) C.G.L., Section 59.04 Florida Statutes 1941....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...It is the appellees' contention that the court's order is not appealable because (1) the appeal is interlocutory in nature and FAR 4.2(a) [1] , 32 F.S.A., does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order upon a motion for a new trial, and (2) Section
59.04, F.S.A., [2] upon which appellants rely, is in conflict with the appellate rule, and therefore it is unconstitutional. Appellees have cited a recent decision by our sister court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Clements v. Aztec Sales, Inc.,
283 So.2d 68, opinion filed June 6, 1973, in which the court held that Section
59.04 *451 conflicts with FAR 4.2(a) and by virtue of Article V, § 2(a) of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., the rule supersedes the statute....
...The court also noted FAR 1.4 which reads in part: "All statutes not superseded hereby or in conflict herewith shall remain in effect as rules promulgated by the Supreme Court." We have carefully considered this case together with other case authority construing F.S. 59.04 and have concluded that the statute does not conflict with FAR 4.2(a), and therefore is not superseded; and pursuant to FAR 1.4, the statute now remains in effect as a rule promulgated by our Supreme Court....
...liability. The appeal was challenged on the ground that the order was not appealable. The court, conceding that the order granting a new trial was not a final judgment, held that the order nevertheless was appealable under the express provisions of Section
59.04. This court has recognized that an order granting a new trial is a right given by Section
59.04 and is therefore not considered interlocutory in nature. Seigel v. Solomon, Fla.App. 1967,
201 So.2d 501. In Means v. Douglas, Fla.App. 1959,
110 So.2d 88, the First District Court of Appeal also considered Section
59.04 and held that the statute confers a right to appeal which creates an exception to the general rule that appeals at law lie only from final judgments. See also, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Boone, Fla. 1956,
85 So.2d 834, 838. Therefore, we conclude that this appeal is not interlocutory in nature, and Section
59.04 presents no conflict with FAR 4.2(a) pertaining to interlocutory appeals....
...as otherwise authorized by these rules. This rule shall not be construed as limiting or affecting the power of the district courts of appeal or the circuit courts in reviewing any appropriate interlocutory order by common law certiorari." [2] F.S., Section 59.04, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1974 Fla. LEXIS 4567
Clement v. Aztec, supra, the District Court held Section
59.04, Florida Statutes, providing for an appeal from
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 151 Fla. 740, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 1252
...*741 The order granting a new trial is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter final judgment for defendant below on the verdict, unless a motion in arrest of judgment or for judgment non obstante veredicto shall be made and prevail. See Section 59.04 Florida Statutes, 1941; Section 4615 C.G.L....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3430
...Montague, Fla.App.1961,
128 So.2d 420 and cases therein cited. The cause is remanded with directions that final judgment be entered for the plaintiff on the verdict unless motion in arrest of judgment or for judgment non obstante veredicto be made and prevailed as provided by Section
59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2813
...dict. *51 Generally, an appeal will lie only from a final judgment or decree except as specified by rule- or statute. Hensley v. Palmer, Fla.1952,
59 So.2d 851 ; Martin v. Meyer, Fla.1953,
68 So.2d 597 ; Brannon v. Johnston, Fla.1955,
83 So.2d 779 . Section
59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., allows appeal from an order granting a motion for new trial....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
trial court's order granting a new trial.1 See §
59.04, Fla. Stat. (2018) ("Upon the entry of an order
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
trial court's order granting a new trial.1 See §
59.04, Fla. Stat. (2018) ("Upon the entry of an order
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13796
...Appellees cross-appeal, contending that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict on the question of liability on the part of the appellants and the refusal of the trial court to give one of appellees’ requested instructions on concurring negligence. The appellants brought this appeal pursuant to the authority of § 59.04, Fla....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1963 Fla. LEXIS 2692
...pra, governing appeals from- “final judgments” in eminent domain proceedings. In the alleged conflicting decisions this Court has held that an order granting a motion for a new trial is interlocutory and is ap-pealable only by virtue of Sections 59.04 and 59.07(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
...That court treated the new trial order as a “final judgment” within the contemplation of the cited eminent domain statute. On the other hand, if the subject order was not a “final judgment” we will have to look to other statutes for the answer to our problem. Sections 59.04 and 59.08, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. • ..Section 59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., authorizes • an appeal from an order granting a new trial....
...revives rather than terminates the judicial labor. Martin v. Rosen, supra; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Boone, supra; Edwards v. Miami Shores Village, Fla.,
40 So.2d 360 . In Edwards we held that an order granting a new trial in an eminent domain proceeding is appealable by virtue of Section
59.04, supra, rather than Section 73.14....
...To summarize, our holding here is that under existing statutes, appeals from final judgments in eminent domain proceedings must be filed within the time stipulated by Section 73.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Ap *651 peals from orders granting' motions for new trial in eminent domain proceedings are governed by Sections 59.04 and 59.08, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1974 Fla. LEXIS 3743
dismiss the appeal on the ground that Fla.Stat. §
59.04, F.S.A., which purports to authorize appeals from
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4630
defendant brought an appeal pursuant to Florida Statute
59.04, F.S.A. from the order vacating the final
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14249
...a new trial. Appellant filed this appeal from the order entered on December 11, by Judge Driver. In Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., Fla. 1974,
297 So.2d 1 , the Supreme Court held that an appeal from an order granting a new trial pursuant to Fla.Stat. §
59.04 (1973) was not interlocutory. If such an appeal is not interlocutory, it would seem to be final, though admittedly it occurs prior to final judgment. In spite of the fact that the wording of Fla.Stat. §
59.04 suggests that the right to appeal from an order granting new trial prior to final judgment may be discretionary, we have found no appeal taken after final judgment in which the losing party urged that the case be reversed because the court h...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...(Fla.Stat. § 59.02, F.S.A.) appeals in cases at common law lie only from final judgments except in those instances where interlocutory appeals may be taken pursuant to Rule 4.2, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. Appeals are permitted by Fla.Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., from orders granting new trials and from orders of non-suit (Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
concur. THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur. Section
59.04 F.S.1961, F.S.A. Section 59.07(4), F.S.1961
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1784
...808 ; Howard v. Ziegler, Fla.,
40 So.2d 776 . The appeal at bar is from an interlocutory order, namely, an order granting a motion for new trial. Such an appeal is allowable only because of the existence of a specific statute granting such right of appeal. Section
59.04, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
PER CURIAM. This appeal is under § 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., from an order granting a new trial after a verdict in an automobile accident case....
...Montague, Fla.App.1961,
128 So.2d 420 ; Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., Fla.App.1960,
122 So.2d 240 ; Means v. Douglas, Fla.App.1959,
110 So.2d 88 ; Ebersole v. Tepperman, Fla.1953,
65 So.2d 564 ); and the cause is remanded with directions as provided for in said §
59.04, id., “that final judgment be entered in the trial court for the party obtaining the verdict, unless motion in arrest of judgment or for judgment non obstante veredicto be made and prevail.” Reversed and remanded.
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4225
...he claim and cause of action of the plaintiff, thereby allowing the plaintiff to schedule the action for trial, where the order does not specify the particular and specific grounds on which it is based?” Appellant bases his argument on Fla. Stats. § 59.04, F.S.A., which has specific reference to an appeal from an order granting a new trial....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 152 Fla. 102, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 709
...stent with this opinion and to enter final judgment for plaintiff below on the verdict, if same is approved consistent with this ■.opinion, unless a motion in arrest of judgment or for judgment non obstante veredicto shall be made and prevail. See Section 59.04 Florida Statutes, 1941; Section 4615 C....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4208
PER CURIAM. The trial judge granted a new trial in a paternity suit. This appeal is brought pursuant to § 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1975 Fla. LEXIS 3336
...On June 6, 1973, the Fourth District in Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., Fla.App.,
283 So.2d 68 , held that an order granting a new trial was subject to dismissal on appeal because it was not included in one of the grounds of our F.A.R. 4.2(a) and held Fla.Stat. §
59.04 specifically providing for an appeal from an order granting a new trial to be invalid because of the provision of F.A.R....
...Aztec Sales, Inc.; reported at Fla.,
297 So.2d 1 , holding with the view of the erudite Judge Norman Hendry foi the Third District in the other case of Lafleur v. Castlewood International Corp. that the statute providing for the appeal from an order granting a new trial under §
59.04 remains viable and is consistent with F.A.R. 4.2 setting forth those cases authorizing interlocutory appeals. Chief Justice Adkins, citing earlier authorities, holds in Aztec that an order granting a new trial is a substantive right given by Fla.Stat. §
59.04 and is not interlocutory in nature and thus not in conflict with F.A.R. 4.2 and that the statute was not superseded by the provisions of F.A.R. 1.4 as in conflict therewith; that under the provision of Rule 1.4 the Statute §
59.04 remains in effect as a rule promulgated by the Supreme Court....
...c and resolved against respondent’s position. The scholarly Judge Tillman Pearson of the Third District authored Means v. Douglas while on assignment in 1959 as Associate Judge in the First District and referred in that able opinion to the Statute § 59.04 as authorizing an appeal from an order granting a new trial, thus projecting from the outset the ultimate holding in the line of cases culminating in the affirmance of his consistent view in the recent *724 decision by this Court in Aztec....
