Legal Opinion
Estate of Stuckey v. Brown
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided May 2, 1997No. 96-150PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR REHEARING OR FOR CLARIFICATION AND APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
WOLF, Judge.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing and motion for rehearing en banc are denied. The motion for clarification is granted to the extent that we clarify our reasoning for reversing the trial court’s order granting a new trial.
Appellees assert that this court has applied an incorrect standard in determining whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial which is in conflict with this court’s decision in Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Arnold, 670 So.2d 96…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- FLA. FIRST NAT. BANK OF JACKSONVILLE v. DentDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
- Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. VroomDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
- Lee v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
- Miller v. AffleckDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
- State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Arnold ex rel. BissonnetteDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brown v. Estate of StuckeySupreme Court of Florida · 1999
- Brown v. Estate of StuckeyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998