injustice violation in Florida

1963See Pyms v. Meranda, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 341, 343 ; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 264, 269 , certiorari discharged, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669 ; 23 Fla.Jur., New Trial, § 87.” Also, in the case of Archibald v. Wittmer, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 236 , this court said: “(1,2) In granting the defendant appellee’s motion for a new trial, the trial judge ruled that the jury had been misdirected.

1960See Pyms v. Meranda, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 341, 343 ; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 264, 269 , certiorari discharged, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669 ; 23 Fla.Jur., New Trial, § 87.

1963See Pyms v. Meranda, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 341, 343 ; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 264, 269 , certiorari discharged, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669 ; 23 Fla.Jur., New Trial, § 87.” Also, in the case of Archibald v. Wittmer, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 236 , this court said: “(1,2) In granting the defendant appellee’s motion for a new trial, the trial judge ruled that the jury had been misdirected.

1963Kraus v. Osteen, Fla.App.1962, 135 So.2d 885 ; Leavstrom v. Muston, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 315 ; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669 .” In the case of Roth v. Calvert Fire Insurance Company, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 49 , the court said: “(2) * * * Trial courts are allowed a very broad and liberal discretion in the matter of granting a new trial and the decision of the trial judge in doing so will seldom be reversed by an appellate court unless an abuse of discretion is shown resulting in an injustice or a violation of the law.

1926The giving of incompetent or false testimony at the hearing, and the injustice of the claim asserted against the property, do not render the judgment null and void. 23 Cyc. 1000, 1100; Bleakley v. Barclay, 75 Kan. 462 , 89 Pac.

1926The giving of incompetent or false testimony at the hearing, and the injustice of the claim asserted against the property, do not render the judgment null and void. 23 Cyc. 1000, 1100; Bleakley v. Barclay, 75 Kan. 462 , 89 Pac.

2026LLC, 121 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 2013), engrafts an additional injustice requirement onto a proper showing of inequity. 15 The Arsali court identified—in a non-exhaustive list—equitable grounds upon which injustice, i.e., the inequity, may be found. 16 By requiring an additional showing of injustice beyond the threshold inequity, the majority may be placing a loftier burden on the movant than was required by Arsali. 15 The majority appears to take this “resulting injustice” language from Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 575, 577 (Fla. 1966); however, Arsali expressly clarified that it “was not then estab

2026LLC, 121 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 2013), engrafts an additional injustice requirement onto a proper showing of inequity. 15 The Arsali court identified—in a non-exhaustive list—equitable grounds upon which injustice, i.e., the inequity, may be found. 16 By requiring an additional showing of injustice beyond the threshold inequity, the majority may be placing a loftier burden on the movant than was required by Arsali. 15 The majority appears to take this “resulting injustice” language from Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 575, 577 (Fla. 1966); however, Arsali expressly clarified that it “was not then estab

1963See Pyms v. Meranda, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 341, 343 ; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 264, 269 , certiorari discharged, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669 ; 23 Fla.Jur., New Trial, § 87.” Also, in the case of Archibald v. Wittmer, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 236 , this court said: “(1,2) In granting the defendant appellee’s motion for a new trial, the trial judge ruled that the jury had been misdirected.

1963Kraus v. Osteen, Fla.App.1962, 135 So.2d 885 ; Leavstrom v. Muston, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 315 ; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669 .” In the case of Roth v. Calvert Fire Insurance Company, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 49 , the court said: “(2) * * * Trial courts are allowed a very broad and liberal discretion in the matter of granting a new trial and the decision of the trial judge in doing so will seldom be reversed by an appellate court unless an abuse of discretion is shown resulting in an injustice or a violation of the law.

1963Kraus v. Osteen, Fla.App.1962, 135 So.2d 885 ; Leavstrom v. Muston, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 315 ; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669 .” In the case of Roth v. Calvert Fire Insurance Company, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 49 , the court said: “(2) * * * Trial courts are allowed a very broad and liberal discretion in the matter of granting a new trial and the decision of the trial judge in doing so will seldom be reversed by an appellate court unless an abuse of discretion is shown resulting in an injustice or a violation of the law.

1963Kraus v. Osteen, Fla.App.1962, 135 So.2d 885 ; Leavstrom v. Muston, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 315 ; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669 .” In the case of Roth v. Calvert Fire Insurance Company, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 49 , the court said: “(2) * * * Trial courts are allowed a very broad and liberal discretion in the matter of granting a new trial and the decision of the trial judge in doing so will seldom be reversed by an appellate court unless an abuse of discretion is shown resulting in an injustice or a violation of the law.

1958For a helpful discussion of the importance of making a transcript of such testimony available to a defendant in a perjury case, see United States v. Rose, 3 Cir., 215 F.2d 617 .