Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 59.35 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 59.35 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 59.35

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 59
APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 59.35
59.35 Judgment; power of appellate court to direct a new trial upon one or more issues.An appellate court may, in reversing a judgment of a lower court brought before it for review by appeal, by the order of reversal, if the error for which reversal is sought is such as to require a new trial, direct that a new trial be had on all the issues shown by the record or upon a part of such issues only. When a reversal is had, with direction for new trial on a part of the issues, all other issues shall be deemed settled conclusively in favor of the appellee.
History.s. 1, ch. 6467, 1913; RGS 2921; CGL 4640; s. 35, ch. 22854, 1945.

F.S. 59.35 on Google Scholar

F.S. 59.35 on Casetext

Amendments to 59.35


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 59.35
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 59.35.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

TRACEY, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF BANC OF AMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., 264 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Section 59.35, Florida Statutes (2018), provides in pertinent part: An appellate court may, in reversing . . . See § 59.35 ("An appellate court may , in reversing a judgment of a lower court brought before it for . . . But the rules of civil procedure do not speak to the scope of appellate remand at all (unlike section 59.35 . . . Accord § 59.35 ; see also Morgan Stanley & Co. v. . . .

ASCONTEC CONSULTING, INC. v. E. YOUNG, 714 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . order a new trial "if the error for which reversal is sought is such as to require a new trial,” § 59.35 . . .

SMITH, v. M. BEASLEY, C. ABLE, v. H. WILKINS, H. Jr., 946 F. Supp. 1174 (D.S.C. 1996)

. . . These changes transformed District 82 into a black majority district, with 63.03% BPOP and 59.35% BVAP . . .

R. WARD, v. COLUMBUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,, 782 F. Supp. 1097 (E.D.N.C. 1991)

. . . Plaintiffs presented two such plans: one with one-majority black district (59.35% black in voting-age . . .

PIC N SAVE WEST FLORIDA CORP. INC. v. L. SPRAGUE P., 589 So. 2d 313 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Co., 360 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); § 59.35, Fla.Stat. (1989). . . .

BROWN, By v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS,, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989)

. . . 131 108 286 62.24 1980-81 40 143 131 314 58.28 1981-82 60 166 177 403 56.08 1982-83 58 180 163 401 59.35 . . .

KANE FURNITURE CORPORATION, v. MIRANDA, KANE FURNITURE CORPORATION, v. P. PERRONE,, 506 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Appellee, relying on Florida Rule of Civil Procedure § 59.35 Fla. . . .

In MOLEN DRILLING CO. INC., 68 B.R. 840 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1987)

. . . . ¶ 59.35, p. 662-63.” In accord: In re Ross, 63 B.R. 951, 962 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1986). . . .

NORTH DADE GOLF, INC. d b a v. CLARKE,, 439 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . See § 59.35, Fla.Stat. (1981) (in reversing order of lower court, appellate court may direct that a new . . .

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

. . . . ¶ 59.35, p. 662. . . . Media Properties Inc., supra, at 145 (decided under the Code); 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, 14th ed., ¶ 59.35 . . .

K- D v., 78 T.C. 742 (T.C. 1982)

. . . Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, secs. 59.30-59.35 (1976); L. Seidler & D. . . .

N. CHADWICK, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,, 674 F.2d 939 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

. . . When Chadwick was found guilty of the first charge, he was fined $200 in addition to the debt of $59.35 . . .

K. NOWICKI, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, a a k a a, 400 So. 2d 199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . trial on damages alone and remand for a new trial on liability and damages on authority of Section 59.35 . . .

W. BROOKS d b a A- v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY Co., 399 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . See Section 59.35, Florida Statutes (1979). . . .

B. RIDENOUR M. v. SHAREK, 388 So. 2d 222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . . § 59.35, Fla.Stat. (1979). . . .

In B. COOPER, d b a d b a To- B. COOPER, v. FIRST INTERNATIONAL BANK IN HOUSTON, N. A., 2 B.R. 188 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1980)

. . . The bank records indicate an opening balance for the month of September, 1976, of $59.35. . . .

WHITFIELD v. J. OLIVER, 399 F. Supp. 348 (M.D. Ala. 1975)

. . . By contrast, in the same month Alabama paid $15.15 per AFDC individual recipient and $59.35 per family . . .

In SOUTHERN LAND TITLE CORPORATION, a, 301 F. Supp. 379 (E.D. La. 1968)

. . . interests of the co-petitioners and the other creditors will not be affected thereby.” 3 Collier ¶ 59.35 . . .

WIDETT, v. WIDETT,, 88 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 1956)

. . . Nothing in this holding is contrary to Sections 59.45, 59.34, 59.35, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., or any . . .

BESSETT v. HACKETT MAXON v. BESSETT, 66 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1953)

. . . Sec. 59.35, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A. Remsberg v. Mosley, Fla., 58 So.2d 432. It is so ordered. . . .

L. v., 13 T.C. 344 (T.C. 1949)

. . . petitioner claimed deductions from income on the additional items of tax and license, $15; and, repairs, $59.35 . . .

MAGRUDER, v. SAFE DEPOSIT TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE, 121 F.2d 981 (4th Cir. 1941)

. . . 504,515.40 Bills Receivable .......... 3,275.00 1,585.00 Payments awaiting Distribution ................... 59.35 . . .

BYRON BARLOW ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES, 35 Ct. Cl. 514 (Ct. Cl. 1900)

. . . The additional cost to the contractors amounted to $59.35. X. . . .

MERCANTILE TRUST CO. v. FARMERS LOAN TRUST CO., 81 F. 254 (8th Cir. 1897)

. . . follows: Salem Branch, 54 miles, $810,000; Beaumont Branch, 61.86 miles, $744,000; Anthony Branch, 59.35 . . .