Legal Opinion

Daon Corp. v. Blankenstein

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 31, 1984No. Nos. 83-105, 83-182PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM,

The nature and effect of the order granting the plaintiff’s motion for mistrial was to grant a new trial. See A & P Bakery & Equipment Co. v. H. Hexter & Son, Inc., 149 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). The trial court’s order did not specify the grounds upon which the new trial was granted, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(f). We therefore relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for the entry of an order stating the reasons for granting the new trial. See Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978); Rodewald v. Lawton, 394 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Re…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wackenhut Corp. v. CantySupreme Court of Florida · 1978
  2. A & P Bakery Supply & Equipment Co. v. H. Hexter & Son, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1963
  3. Rodewald v. LawtonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Casines v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API