Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintiffdamagesstatuteappealtrialverdictmotionsustained
tortplaintiffdamagesstatuteappealtrialverdictmotionsustained

Related Cases

Bullock v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 549 S.W.2d 166
View Case »
Amelang v. Harris County Appraisal District, 695 S.W.3d 348
View Case »
Annenberg v. Com., 562 Pa. 570, 757 A.2d 333
View Case »
Weber v. Dockray, 2 N.J.Super. 492, 64 A.2d 631
View Case »
E. Ingraham Co. v. Town and City of Bristol, 146 Conn. 403, 151 A.2d 700
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Johnson v. City of Pensacola, 164 So.2d 844

Facts

The plaintiffs sued the City of Pensacola and a hospital for personal injuries sustained in a tort action. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to a judgment against the City. The City then filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial, claiming the jury's verdict was excessively influenced by passion or prejudice. The trial court denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict but granted a new trial on the grounds of excessive damages, vacating the previous judgment.

The plaintiffs sued the City of Pensacola and a hospital for personal injuries sustained in a tort action. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to a judgment against the City.

Issue

Whether the City of Pensacola could cross-appeal the trial court's denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after a new trial was granted on the issue of damages only.

Whether the City of Pensacola could cross-appeal the trial court's denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after a new trial was granted on the issue of damages only.

Rule

A party may only appeal the specific grounds stated by the trial judge for granting a new trial, and cannot raise other grounds that were rejected by the trial court.

A party may only appeal the specific grounds stated by the trial judge for granting a new trial, and cannot raise other grounds that were rejected by the trial court.

Analysis

The court analyzed the procedural posture of the case, noting that the trial court's order granting a new trial was limited to the issue of damages. Since the City of Pensacola's cross-assignment of errors included challenges to the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and other issues, the court found that these were not permissible under the statute governing appeals from orders granting new trials.

The court analyzed the procedural posture of the case, noting that the trial court's order granting a new trial was limited to the issue of damages.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the cross-appeal filed by the City of Pensacola, ruling that it was improper and not authorized by statute or procedural rules.

The court dismissed the cross-appeal filed by the City of Pensacola, ruling that it was improper and not authorized by statute or procedural rules.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in the case as the court dismissed the City's cross-appeal, affirming the trial court's decision to grant a new trial on damages only.

The plaintiffs prevailed in the case as the court dismissed the City's cross-appeal, affirming the trial court's decision to grant a new trial on damages only.

You must be