Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Danielson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 24, 2017No. CASE NO. 1D16-234Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BILBREY,, J„

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I join in the majority’s decision affirming the trial court’s grant of a new trial on. non-economic damages, Specifically, I agree with and join sections I.,1 II„ and II.A. of the opinion. I respectfully dissent from the decision to reverse the trial court’s order granting a new trial, on punitive damages and therefore do not join sections II.B, or III. of the majority decision.

As'the majority notes, we review orders granting a mew trial for abuse of discretion. Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1999). Furthermore, as the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Canakaris v. CanakarisSupreme Court of Florida · 1980
  2. Delno v. Market St. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1942
  3. Brown v. Estate of StuckeySupreme Court of Florida · 1999
  4. St. Regis Paper Co. v. WatsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1983
  5. Taylor v. GanasDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API