Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2021–2026 · …clearly, it is a jury function to evaluate the credibility of any given witness. at p. 870 ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2003 · …the trial judge must necessarily consider the credibility of the witnesses along with the weight of all of the other evidence. at p. 870 ✓
104 citation events (40 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Michael D. Foster v. Yamaurys Pulido Jimenez (fladistctapp, 2026-05-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Michael D. Foster v. Yamaurys Pulido Jimenez
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
clearly, it is a jury function to evaluate the credibility of any given witness.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) KAREN HERNANDEZ, etc. v. SHULI ANDREW MISHALI
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
clearly, it is a jury function to evaluate the credibility of any given witness.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Gainesville, d/b/a Gainesville Regional Utilities v. Jacob T. Rodgers
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
“In deciding whether the evidence manifestly weighs against the verdict, the trial court must examine all of the evidence—giving consideration to its weight and credibility.” Meyers v. Shontz, 251 So. 3d 992 , 6 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (citing Van v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243, 260 (Fla. 2013), and Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla. 1988)); see also Smith v. Lyles, 364 So. 3d 1123 , 1129 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (citing Meyers for authority that a trial court must consider “all of the evidence” when deciding whether a verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of evidence).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) FRED MEYERS AND NINIBETH MEYERS v. BONNEVA SHONTZ (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
See Van v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243, 260 (Fla. 2013); Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla. 1988).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Hashmi-Alikhan v. Staples (4×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
“When a motion for new trial is made it is directed to the sound, broad discretion of the trial judge . . . .” Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669, 673 (Fla. 1959) (citations omitted). “[T]he trial judge can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict.” Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868, 870 (Fla. 1988) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kevan Boyles v. A&G Concrete Pools Inc. (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Collins v. Douglass, 874 So.2d 629, 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Van v. Schmidt
Fla. · 2013 · confidence medium
Squibb & Sons, 697 So.2d at 826 (quoting Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla.1988)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ring Power Corp. v. Rosier
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
But the trial court should “refrain from acting as an additional juror” and “should only intervene when the manifest weight of the evidence dictates such action.” Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla.1988) (emphasis in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. Weiland
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion."); Harlan Bakeries, Inc. v. Snow, 884 So.2d 336, 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ("For a verdict to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, so as to warrant a new trial, the evidence must be clear, obvious, and indisputable; where there is conflicting evidence, the weight to be given that evidence is within the province of the jury."); Phillips Buick-Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. Dallon, 602 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 5th DCA) (ho…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hahn v. Medeiros (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
We begin our legal analysis by noting the generally recognized principle that although trial judges should refrain from acting as the seventh juror in the trial proceeding, they are, nevertheless, obligated to grant a new trial "if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict." Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla.1988) (quoted with approval in Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490, 497 (Fla.1999)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) North v. Altech Yachts, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
It quoted from Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla.1988), which stated: [T]he trial judge should refrain from acting as an additional juror.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ray v. International Transit, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
And, as the Florida Supreme Court observed in Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla.1988), “The mere showing that there was evidence in the record to support the jury verdict does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion.” Although I am aware that this elevated review standard is generally applied to orders granting motions for new trial, I am of the opinion, because of the unusual posture of this case, that the above review standard is inapplicable to the order before us; therefore, it should be reversed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Midtown Enterprises, Inc. v. Local Contractors, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
The supreme court also quotes from Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla.1988), in which it stated: Clearly, it is a jury function to evaluate the credibility of any given witness.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Montero
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ER Squibb and Sons, Inc. v. Farnes (2×)
Fla. · 1997 · confidence medium
Id. at 870 (emphasis added and omitted) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co. v. Poole
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
The trial court’s order stating its grounds for granting a new trial has been reviewed by us and we find no abuse of discretion in its action. ‘We are unable to say, after viewing the evidence as a whole, that reasonable ... [persons] could not have concluded that the verdict ... was against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Arnold ex rel. Bissonnette
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
The mere showing that there was evidence in the record to support the jury verdict does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion.” Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Becker v. Williams
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla. 1988); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1959) The trial court's discretion, however, is not unbridled.
cited Cited as authority (rule) VETERANS AUTO SALES & LEAS. v. Poole
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
In Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla. 1988), the supreme court held that the trial court may grant a new trial when the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rety v. Green (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
This determination necessarily requires the trial judge to "consider the credibility of the witnesses along with the weight of all of the other evidence" and to enter such order "when the manifest weight of the evidence dictates such action." Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited "see" WILLIE LAFAYETTE and SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC. v. RITA GENOVESE, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of MICHAEL GENOVESE (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868, 870 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited "see" Botta v. Florida Power & Light Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 497 (quoting Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla.1988) (making clear that the trial judge must consider the credibility of witnesses in determining whether the manifest weight of the evidence was contrary to the verdict)).
cited Cited "see" Lindon v. Dalton Hotel Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Harris
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988) (in maMng a decision whether to grant a new trial, the judge must necessarily consider credibility of the witnesses along with the weight of the evidence); Smyly (in assessing the verdict in light of the weight and credibility of the evidence under rule 3.600, the trial judge sits as a seventh juror with a veto over the unanimous verdict of the other six jurors); State v. Hart, 632 So.2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (the process of assessing whether the jury’s verdict is consistent with the weight of the evidence necessarily requires that the trial jud…
cited Cited "see" Jones v. Stevenson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited "see" Maler Ex Rel. Maler v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 1988); Horowitz v. Schwartz, 74 So.2d 801, 804 (Fla. 1954); Williams v. Meyer, 474 So.2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Lazenby v. Beisel, 425 So.2d 84, 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), approved, 444 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1984).
discussed Cited "see" Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Pope
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d at 870 ; Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 1981); Baptist Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1980); Castlewood Int'l Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1975); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1959).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Francis-Harbin v. Sensormatic Electronics
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868, 870 (Fla. 1988) (in deciding to “grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict,” the “trial judge must necessarily consider the credibility of the witnesses along with the weight of all of the other evidence.”) Similarly, and as discussed earlier, a trial court’s assessment of whether an award of no damages for past or future pain and suffering renders the verdict inadequate requires the trial record to evaluate, for example, whether and the extent to which these damages were disputed or undisputed.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hernandez v. Gonzalez
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“The appropriate standard of review applied to a trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Izquierdo v. Gyroscope, Inc., 946 So.2d 115, 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla.1988) (claim that verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence is reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sorondo v. Batet
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
Midtown Enterprises, Inc. v. Local Contractors, Inc., — So.2d-, 2001 WL 356946 (Fla. 3d DCA Case no. 3D00-2151, opinion filed, April 11, 2001); see also Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988); Department of Transportation v. Rosario, 782 So.2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Loyola v. Ricks, 777 So.2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Ford v. Robinson, 403 So.2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Nicaise v. Gagnon
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla. 1988), and Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 1981).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Dillard v. Choronzy
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988); Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bill T. SMITH, Etc., et al., Petitioners,
v.
Katherine S. BROWN, Respondent.
71304.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 26, 1988.
525 So. 2d 868
1988 WL 53518
Grimes.
Cited by 56 opinions  |  Published

[*869] Stephen C. McAliley & Associates, West Palm Beach, and Michael B. Davis of Davis Hoy & Diamond, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.

Craig W. Lekach of Lekach & Klitzner, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.

GRIMES, Justice.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Smith v. Brown, 511 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), certified the following question to us as one of great public importance:

WHETHER THE REASONABLE MAN STANDARD, AS SET FORTH IN BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. BELL, [384 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1980)], APPLIES TO THE TRIAL COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT THE JURY VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, OR RATHER TO ITS PERCEPTION OF THE EVIDENCE?

Id. at 660. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.

In the oft-cited case of Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1959), this Court set forth the standard of review for an order which grants a new trial because the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

When the judge, who must be presumed to have drawn on his talents, his knowledge and his experience to keep the search for the truth in a proper channel, concludes that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, it is his duty to grant a new trial, and he should always do that if the jury has been deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record, Martin v. Stone [Fla., 51 So.2d 33], supra, Turner v. Frey [Fla., 81 So.2d 721], supra, Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., Fla., 86 So.2d 792; Florida Publishing Co. v. Copeland, Fla., 89 So.2d 18.
Inasmuch as such motions are granted in the exercise of a sound, broad discretion the ruling should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that it has been abused. Dent v. Margaret Ann Super Markets, Fla., 52 So.2d 130; Geffrey v. Langston Const. Co., Fla., 58 So.2d 698; Pyms v. Meranda [Fla., 98 So.2d 341], supra.

Id. at 673.

Thereafter, in Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1980), we explained the standard to be applied by an appellate court in determining whether the entry of such an order constituted an abuse of discretion.

In reviewing this type of discretionary act of the trial court, the appellate court should apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge abused his discretion. If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action[*870] is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.

Id. at 146.

Since the majority opinion below contains neither facts nor analysis, we have some difficulty in discerning the precise issue which prompted the court to certify the question. From statements in the dissenting opinion and comments made by counsel at oral argument, it appears that the court is uncertain with respect to whether a trial judge can order a new trial when the credibility of witnesses is at issue.

Clearly, it is a jury function to evaluate the credibility of any given witness. Fierstos v. Cullum, 351 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Moreover, the trial judge should refrain from acting as an additional juror. Laskey v. Smith, 239 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1970). Nevertheless, the trial judge can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict. Haendel v. Paterno, 388 So.2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In making this decision, the trial judge must necessarily consider the credibility of the witnesses along with the weight of all of the other evidence. Ford v. Robinson, 403 So.2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The trial judge should only intervene when the manifest weight of the evidence dictates such action. However, when a new trial is ordered, the abuse of discretion test becomes applicable on appellate review. The mere showing that there was evidence in the record to support the jury verdict does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 1981).

Applying these principles to the instant case, we agree that the order granting the new trial must be sustained. While the credibility of the respondent was substantially attacked, we are unable to say, after viewing the evidence as a whole, that reasonable men could not have concluded that the verdict for petitioners was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

We approve the decision of the district court of appeal.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.