Cases from cite.case.law:

R. SABOFF, v. R. SABOFF,, 275 So. 3d 712 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See § 59.04, Fla. . . .

IN RE OI S. A. a, 587 B.R. 253 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . percentages by value of claims in attendance: 92.28% of Class I, 100% of Class II, 98.57% of Class III, and 59.04% . . .

In GARNER, v., 520 B.R. 683 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2014)

. . . Both parties filed motions to alter or amend under Rule 59.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure . . .

SCIBILIA, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 493 F. App'x 225 (2d Cir. 2012)

. . . D § 59.04(7). . . .

In HUNTINGTON DEVELOPMENT, LLC,, 469 B.R. 468 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.04[13] (2d ed. 1995) (“The trial court should consider the . . .

In ALL LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC,, 468 B.R. 676 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.04[13] (2d ed. 1995) (“The trial court should consider the . . .

S. MONCIER, v. JONES,, 803 F. Supp. 2d 815 (E.D. Tenn. 2011)

. . . P. 52.02, 54.02, 59.04 and 60.02 for relief from multiple errors and mistakes in the [h]earing [p]anel . . . proceedings and thus provided him a right to move to correct the judgment pursuant to Rules 52.02, 54.02, 59.04 . . .

RATTRAY, v. WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA,, 788 F. Supp. 2d 839 (N.D. Iowa 2011)

. . . Moore & Jo Desha Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[2] (2d ed. 1991)). . . .

In G. ARRIGO, B., 399 B.R. 700 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2008)

. . . The gross income amounts on Debtor’s Amended Schedule I and Amended Form 22C thus differ by only $59.04 . . .

v., 28 Ct. Int'l Trade 1954 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[13], at 59.33 (2d ed. 1993)); see also Confederated Tribes . . .

JAZZ PHOTO CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . MoorE et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[13], at 59.33 (2d ed.1993)); see also Confederated Tribes . . .

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF TAMPA, v. BURTON,, 874 So. 2d 6 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . The circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal pursuant to section 59.04, Florida Statutes (2002 . . .

In AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT, INC., 298 B.R. 152 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2003)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶¶ 59.04[13] (2d ed.1966). . . .

MITCHELL, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,, 50 F. App'x 268 (6th Cir. 2002)

. . . P. 59.04, a “reasonable time” to move for relief under Rule 60.02(1), up to one year under Rule 60.02 . . .

In PASS, a k a, 258 B.R. 170 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2001)

. . . P. 59.04 motion to alter or amend the judgment to include a notation of their attorneys’ lien. . . . the same day as the order of judgment, it was filed well within the thirty-day deadline fixed by Rule 59.04 . . .

In LABRUM DOAK, LLP, LABRUM DOAK, a v. R. BROWN,, 226 B.R. 161 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1998)

. . . MOORE, [FEDERAL PRACTICE], ¶ 59.04[13], at 59-33 to 59-38 [(2d ed.1989)]; and 75 AM. . . . MOORE, supra, ¶ 59.04[13], at 59-35, the burdens placed upon the parties and their witnesses, undue prejudice . . .

HAWKINS, v. HENDERSON COUNTY,, 22 F. Supp. 2d 573 (E.D. Tex. 1998)

. . . . § 59.04(a) (Vernon Supp.1997). . . .

H. HOLZAPFEL, v. TOWN OF NEWBURGH, NEW YORK, M. KEHOE,, 950 F. Supp. 1267 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[5] (2d ed.1996). . . . .

JOHNSON, v. MILLER, Jr., 929 F. Supp. 1529 (S.D. Ga. 1996)

. . . After a second objection by the DOJ, the third and final plan provided for 59.04% BTP and 54.03% BVAP . . .

BLINZLER, A. v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. BLINZLER, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., 81 F.3d 1148 (1st Cir. 1996)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[13], at 59-33 (2d ed.1993). . . . See Moore, supra, ¶ 59.04[13], at 59-33. . . .

COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, v. UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE,, 72 F.3d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

. . . Pearson, 636 F.2d 526, 529 (D.C.Cir.1980) (citing 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04(7) (2d ed. 1979 . . .

JOY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. A S v. FLAKT, INC., 901 F. Supp. 180 (D. Del. 1995)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.04[13] (2d ed. 1995). . . . Rhoades, 527 F.2d 891, 894 (3d Cir.1975); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.04[13]. . . .

v. RIVERA- FLORES, v. PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY,, 64 F.3d 742 (1st Cir. 1995)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[13], at 59-33 (2d ed. 1993). 1. . . .

In P. GRIMM E., 168 B.R. 102 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1994)

. . . Moore & Jo Desha Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[13], at 59-36 (2d ed. 1994). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CARR, Jr. No. UNITED STATES v. CARDONA- USQUIANO, No., 25 F.3d 1194 (3d Cir. 1994)

. . . Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 59.04, at 118 (5th ed. 1992 rev.) . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. FERGUSON, XXX XX XXXX E- U. S., 40 M.J. 823 (N.M.C.M.R. 1994)

. . . Id. at § 59.04. See also Ratzlaf v. United States, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994). . . .

JOSEPH v. TERMINEX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY,, 17 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 1994)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.04[13], at 59-33 (2d ed. 1993). . . .

UNITED STATES v. P. WHITE, XXX- XX- XXXX E- U. S., 39 M.J. 796 (N.M.C.M.R. 1994)

. . . Sutherland Stat Const §§ 59.03, 59.04 (5th ed.) . . . .

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, s s s M. D. v. P. CASEY, N. D. D., 822 F. Supp. 227 (E.D. Pa. 1993)

. . . Moore et al, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶59.04[13] (2d ed. 1974)), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 832, 100 S.Ct . . .

In LEASE- A- FLEET, INC. LEASE- A- FLEET, INC. v. L. WOLK, C. Le-, 151 B.R. 341 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1993)

. . . MOORE, II 59.04[13], at 59-36 to 59-37 (2d ed. 1988) (motions to reopen a record are viewed with disfavor . . .

COOL LIGHT COMPANY, INC. v. GTE PRODUCTS CORPORATION,, 973 F.2d 31 (1st Cir. 1992)

. . . Moore & Jo Desha Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice H 59.04[2] (2d ed. 1991). . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. STAPLES,, 971 F.2d 608 (10th Cir. 1992)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 59.04 (3d Ed. 1977). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. ROGERS, T. T. III, J. F. J. R. I., 960 F.2d 1501 (10th Cir. 1992)

. . . consider the character of the testimony and the effect of such an action. 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.04 . . .

In ORFA CORP. OF AMERICA DEL. ORFA CORP. OF AMERICA DEL. v. L. CAPPELLO, T. K. P. R. B. D. Jr. R., 115 B.R. 799 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1990)

. . . MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE, ¶ 59.04[6], at 59-24 (2d ed. 1989). . . . MOORE, supra, ¶ 59.04[6], at 59-23, the amendments are sought on the basis of new evidence not only not . . . MOORE, supra, It 59.04[13], at 59-29, but is a distinct animal referred to as “a cannibalization of those . . . MOORE, supra, 11 59.04[13], at 59-33 to 59-38; and 75 AM.JUR.2d 243-44 (1974). . . . MOORE, supra, ¶ 59.04[13], at 59-35, the burdens placed upon the parties and their witnesses, undue prejudice . . .

UNITED STATES v. BURKE,, 888 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1989)

. . . See generally 3 Sutherland Statutory Construction § 59.04 (D. Sands 4th ed.) (N. . . .

Dr. J. ROMERO, E. v. CITY OF POMONA G. M. E. J. In, 883 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir. 1989)

. . . Grotheer, Jr., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[13], at 33-34 (2d ed. 1987). . . .

In FLEET, FLEET, v. UNITED STATES CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC., 103 B.R. 578 (E.D. Pa. 1989)

. . . MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE, fl 59.04[13], at 59-36 to 59-37 (2d ed. 1988) (such motions are viewed with . . .

BROWNING- FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF VERMONT, INC. v. KELCO DISPOSAL, INC., 492 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1989)

. . . Grotheer, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.04[1] (2d ed. 1987). . . .

UNITED STATES, v. M. PIPER, XXX- XX- XXXX, 26 M.J. 728 (A.C.M.R. 1988)

. . . his pleas, he was found guilty of conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana and distribution of 59.04 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MITTLEIDER, a k a, 835 F.2d 769 (10th Cir. 1987)

. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 59.04 (3d ed. 1977). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. H. HOLMES,, 822 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1987)

. . . Statutory Construction §§ 59.03-59.04 (4th ed. 1986) (discussing rule that penal statutes are to be strictly . . .

O LEE, v. STATE, 508 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . .” § 59.04, Fla.Stat. (1985); see also § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1985). . . .

E. LUNDGREN, F, v. P. McDANIEL,, 814 F.2d 600 (11th Cir. 1987)

. . . U.S. 321, 332, 91 S.Ct. 795, 803, 28 L.Ed.2d 77 (1971); see also, 6A Moore’s Federal Practice par. 59.04 . . .

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. L. ROGERS S. A. S. A. R. L. S. A. E. d b a, 790 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1986)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, 11 59.04[13] at 59-31 to 32 (2d ed. 1985). . . .

AYRES, SEARS, ROEBUCK COMPANY,, 789 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1986)

. . . Union Mechling Corp., 595 S.W.2d 232 (Ark.Ct.App.1980); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[13] (2d ed . . .

In CROZIER BROS. INC., 60 B.R. 683 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 59.04[6] and 59.12.[12] (1985 ed.). . . .

DOW CHEMICAL PACIFIC LTD. v. RASCATOR MARITIME S. A. a k a A. M. D. Co. U. S. A. M V OGDEN FRASER, S. A. A. M. D. M V Co. U. S. A. MANUEL INTERNATIONAL INC. D. I. S. C. v. RASCATOR MARITIME S. A. a k a A. M. D. Co. U. S. A. M V OGDEN FRASER, S. A. A. M. D. M V Co. U. S. A., 782 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1986)

. . . United States, 702 F.2d 333, 342 (2d Cir.1983); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice II 59.04[13], at 59-31 to . . .

DELLA GROTTA, v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND,, 781 F.2d 343 (1st Cir. 1986)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[5] (2d ed. 1985); 9 C. Wright & A. . . .

ECHOLS, v. STATE, 484 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1985)

. . . Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(f); §§ 59.04 and 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1981); Cohen v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. VEN- FUEL, INC., 758 F.2d 741 (1st Cir. 1985)

. . . Compare 3 Sutherland Statutory Construction §§ 59.01-59.04 (C. . . .

SHUSHEREBA, v. R. B. INDUSTRIES, INC., 104 F.R.D. 524 (W.D. Pa. 1985)

. . . Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 59.04 n. 4 (2d ed. 1983). . . .

STATE OF FLORIDA v. BASS, 8 Fla. Supp. 2d 127 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985)

. . . Sec. 59.04 Fla. Stat. (1983); See State v. Wadsworth, 210 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1968); State v. . . .

WHARTON ETH- WHA, INC. v. F. DuBOSE,, 458 So. 2d 411 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . thus immediately appealable, or is the equivalent of an order for a new trial, governed by section 59.04 . . .

J. VAUGHNS, Jr. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY,, 574 F. Supp. 1280 (D. Md. 1983)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.04[13] (2d ed. 1983). . . . .

PARISIE, v. J. W. GREER,, 705 F.2d 882 (7th Cir. 1983)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[7], at 59-26 & n. 13 (2d ed. 1982); id. ¶ 59.12[1], at 59-278 to 59-280 . . .

B. V. BUREAU WIJSMULLER, v. UNITED STATES, 702 F.2d 333 (2d Cir. 1983)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[13], at 59-31 (2d ed. 1979). . . .

N. WERTZ v. UNITED STATES, 2 Cl. Ct. 45 (Cl. Ct. 1983)

. . . rehearing denied, 401 U.S. 1015, 91 S.Ct. 1247, 28 L.Ed.2d 552 (1971); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04 . . .

TABCOR SALES CLEARING, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 95 F.R.D. 534 (N.D. Ill. 1982)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.04[7], (2d ed. 1982). . . .

UNITED STATES v. KELLY, 548 F. Supp. 1130 (E.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . See also 2 Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 59.04 (1977). . . .

INDEPENDENCE TUBE CORPORATION, v. COPPERWELD CORPORATION v. F. GROHNE,, 691 F.2d 310 (7th Cir. 1982)

. . . also to a jury and because such judicial control over jury verdict had existed at common law, id., H 59.04 . . .

UNITED STATES v. O BRIEN O, 686 F.2d 850 (10th Cir. 1982)

. . . Scott, Criminal Law § 31 (1972); Sutherland at § 59.04. . . .

In P. CLAXTON, III,, 21 B.R. 905 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1982)

. . . under Section 59b on the date the original petition was filed. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, 14th ed., ¶ 59.04 . . .

PUREX CORP. v. PROCTER GAMBLE CO. Co., 664 F.2d 1105 (9th Cir. 1981)

. . . Our scope of review of this decision is quite limited. 6A Moore’s Federal Practice If 59.04[13] at 59 . . .

UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, v. SCHIAVO BROTHERS, INC., 668 F.2d 172 (3d Cir. 1981)

. . . should be granted whatever relief his motion shows him to be entitled.” 6A Moore’s Federal Practice j| 59.04 . . .

STUMES, v. SOLEM,, 511 F. Supp. 1312 (D.S.D. 1981)

. . . denied, 394 U.S. 906, 89 S.Ct. 1008, 22 L.Ed.2d 216 (1969), 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed. section 59.04 . . .

HILL, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL AFFILIATES, INC., 387 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . . § 59.04, Fla.Stat. (1979), incorporated in Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4). . . .

BUTLER, v. S. PEARSON, 636 F.2d 526 (D.C. Cir. 1980)

. . . under Rule 60 when it states grounds for relief under this latter rule. 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04 . . .

R. STONE, D. a D. J. B. L. M. a a Co. a v. FIRST WYOMING BANK N. A. LUSK, N. A., 625 F.2d 332 (10th Cir. 1980)

. . . See generally 5A Moore’s Federal Practice 1150.05[2], 50.07[2]; 6A Moore’s Federal Practice HI 59.04[ . . .

UNITED STATES v. F. LARSON, UNITED STATES v. CALLAHAN,, 596 F.2d 759 (8th Cir. 1979)

. . . additional testimony is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶59.04 . . .

Dr. T. SKEHAN v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BLOOMSBURG STATE COLLEGE Dr. Dr. Dr. T. No. Dr. Dr. No., 590 F.2d 470 (3d Cir. 1978)

. . . See 6A Moore’s Federal Practice H 59.04[13] at 36 (2d ed. 1974). . . .

CANTON BRANCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, v. CITY OF CANTON, MISSISSIPPI, S. A. J. D. L. B. Sr. H. B. R. H. Jr. Dr. B. HINTON, G. S. N. v. BALDWIN, J. D. B. H. B. A. Jr., 472 F. Supp. 859 (S.D. Miss. 1978)

. . . Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 331-332, 91 S.Ct. 795, 28 L.Ed.2d 77 (1972); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice 59.04 . . .

J. KIRKSEY, L. Jr. A. T. L. K. J. B. L. L. v. CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, C. B. W. R. E. Jr. P., 461 F. Supp. 1282 (S.D. Miss. 1978)

. . . Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 331-332, 91 S.Ct. 795, 28 L.Ed.2d 77 (1971); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04 . . .

H. HENNESSY, Jr. d b a a v. A. SCHMIDT,, 583 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1978)

. . . See 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, 'l 59.04[13] (1974). . . . .

P. McLEAN, v. ALEXANDER, D. Jr. A. R. B. Jr. A. R. P. B., 449 F. Supp. 1251 (D. Del. 1978)

. . . concluded that the interests of fairness warrant a denial of the motion. 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04 . . .

MAGNALEASING, INC. v. STATEN ISLAND MALL, 428 F. Supp. 1039 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶] 59.04[13] (2d ed. 1974). . See Cruz v. . . .

COUNTY OF MARICOPA OF STATE OF ARIZONA, a v. L. MABERRY E., 555 F.2d 207 (9th Cir. 1977)

. . . Wack, 464 F.2d 86, 88 (10th Cir. 1972); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04[1]. . . .

H. BOWEN v. WILLARD,, 340 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1976)

. . . issue presented involves the scope of a district court’s review in an appeal taken pursuant to Section 59.04 . . . Willard appealed to the district court pursuant to Section 59.04, citing as error the failure of the . . . Aztec Sales, Inc., 297 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974), we held that appeals taken pursuant to Section 59.04 are not . . . interlocutory appeals governed by Florida Appellate Rule 4.2, and that Section 59.04 had been adopted . . . There it was held that an appeal under Section 59.04 should be treated as an appeal of a final judgment . . .

DORR- OLIVER, INCORPORATED, a v. PARNELL, DORR- OLIVER, INCORPORATED, a v. PARNELL, M., 334 So. 2d 629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . The appellants brought this appeal pursuant to the authority of § 59.04, Fla. . . .

UNITED STATES v. POSNER, 408 F. Supp. 1145 (D. Md. 1976)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 59.04[13]. . . .

FLOOD, v. W. WARE a, 326 So. 2d 46 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . . § 59.04 (1973) was not interlocutory. . . . In spite of the fact that the wording of Fla.Stat. § 59.04 suggests that the right to appeal from an . . .

SHERRILL, v. ROYAL INDUSTRIES, INC. a W. R. Co. a, 526 F.2d 507 (8th Cir. 1975)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice H 59.04[11] (1974). . . .

C. HOFFMAN, A. v. JACKSON S MINIT MARKETS, INC. C. HOFFMAN, v. JACKSON S MINIT MARKETS, INC., 313 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1975)

. . . . § 59.04 specifically providing for an appeal from an order granting a new trial to be invalid because . . . International Corp. that the statute providing for the appeal from an order granting a new trial under § 59.04 . . . authorities, holds in Aztec that an order granting a new trial is a substantive right given by Fla.Stat. § 59.04 . . . provisions of F.A.R. 1.4 as in conflict therewith; that under the provision of Rule 1.4 the Statute § 59.04 . . . in 1959 as Associate Judge in the First District and referred in that able opinion to the Statute § 59.04 . . .

MATTHEWS, v. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 303 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1974)

. . . Aztec, supra, the District Court held Section 59.04, Florida Statutes, providing for an appeal from an . . . So.2d 1 (Fla.1974), reversed the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal and found Section 59.04 . . . instant decision of the District Court dismissing appellant’s appeal in addition to holding Section 59.04 . . .

WACKENHUT CORPORATION v. JUDGES OF DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, WACKENHUT CORPORATION v. CANTY,, 297 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1974)

. . . . § 59.04, F.S.A., which purports to authorize appeals from orders granting new trials in civil cases . . . App. 4th, 1973), which held that Fla.Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., was unconstitutional and that an appeal does . . . Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., authorizes an appeal from an order granting a new trial. . . .

CLEMENT, a By A. A. v. AZTEC SALES, INC., 297 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)

. . . . § 59.04, F.S.A., giving this Court jurisdiction under Fla.Const., art. V, § 3(b)(1), F.S.A. . . . That court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss, holding that Fla.Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A. . . . We have carefully considered this case, together with other case authority construing Fla.Stat. § 59.04 . . . Further, it has been held that Fla.Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., confers a right to appeal which creates an . . . We conclude that this present appeal is not an interlocutory one and that Fla.Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., . . .

OLDENBURG, v. CLARK, 489 F.2d 839 (10th Cir. 1974)

. . . Wack, 464 F.2d 86 (10th Cir. 1972); 6A Moore on Federal Practice ¶ 59.04 [1] (1973). . . . .

LAFLEUR v. CASTLEWOOD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, d b a s, 285 So. 2d 449 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . does not permit an interlocutory appeal from an order upon a motion for a new trial, and (2) Section 59.04 . . . Aztec Sales, Inc., 283 So.2d 68, opinion filed June 6, 1973, in which the court held that Section 59.04 . . . This court has recognized that an order granting a new trial is a right given by Section 59.04 and is . . . Douglas, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 88, the First District Court of Appeal also considered Section 59.04 . . . Therefore, we conclude that this appeal is not interlocutory in nature, and Section 59.04 presents no . . .

OSTEEN, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a, 283 So. 2d 379 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . . § 59.04, F.S. . . .

CONGOLEUM INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY, 366 F. Supp. 220 (E.D. Pa. 1973)

. . . International Corp., 191 F.Supp. 937 (S.D.N.Y.1961); See also, 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.03, ¶ 59.04 . . .

RAMSEY v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, TENNESSEE PRODUCTS AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,, 481 F.2d 742 (6th Cir. 1973)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice jf 59.04[13] (2d ed. 1966). . . .

URTI, v. TRANSPORT COMMERCIAL CORPORATION,, 479 F.2d 766 (5th Cir. 1973)

. . . be proper where] the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.04 . . .

CLEMENT, a A. A. v. AZTEC SALES, INC., 283 So. 2d 68 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . ON MOTION TO DISMISS We are squarely faced with an assault upon the validity of F.S. 59.04, F.S.A., Laws . . . of 1971, which provides: “59.04 Appeal from order granting new trial.' — Upon the entry of an order . . . Now concluding, it is our opinion that the provisions of F.S. 59.04, F.S.A., supra, are salutary and . . . Thus, of course, Section 59.04, F.S.1971, F.S.A., is in conflict with Rule 4.2, supra, if the statute . . . Having now responded, we adhere to our opinion holding Section 59.04, F.S.1971, F.S.A., to be invalid . . .

MARLEY, a v. SAUNDERS, 249 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1971)

. . . from an order granting a new trial on the issue of damages only, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59.04 . . . Section 59.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides: “Upon the entry of an order granting a new trial, . . . but she asserts that she has a right of appeal from the order under the express provisions of Section 59.04 . . . a new trial on the issue of liability should not be penalized by a strained construction of Section 59.04 . . . trials on part of the issues are consonant with the salutary purpose designed to be effected by Section 59.04 . . .

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL- CIO, LOCAL NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION DAYTON, OHIO CHAPTER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,, 440 F.2d 1184 (6th Cir. 1971)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 59.04 [13] at 3724 (2d ed. 1966). . . .

ZENITH RADIO CORP. v. HAZELTINE RESEARCH, INC., 401 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1971)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 59.04 [13] (2d ed. 1966). . . .

UNITED STATES WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, v. BUCON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,, 430 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1970)

. . . F.2d 350, 353; 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.03, pp. 3708, 3709; 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, § 59.04 . . .

E. SMITH, v. MONTGOMERY WARD CO., 232 So. 2d 195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . the appellant makes it appear that the alleged error resulted in a miscarriage of justice, Section 59.04 . . .

MARTIN, v. Dr. J. BETO,, 397 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1968)

. . . See 6A Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd ed., j[ 59.04 [13]. . . .

JEFFERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 183 Ct. Cl. 720 (Ct. Cl. 1968)

. . . feet above mean [linear feet] sea level] Unit 2: D1 59.63 El 57.41 El 57. 56 0. 94 G1 57.21 4.19 E3 59.04 . . .

V. HARRISON, v. ANCLOTE MANOR FOUNDATION, a, 205 So. 2d 541 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . . § 59.04, F.S.A., which has specific reference to an appeal from an order granting a new trial. . . .