1. The principles guiding trial court’s discretion on remand include the need for a fair and impartial trial, the interest of justice, and the efficient use of judicial resources.
2. The trial court’s discretion may be influenced by factors such as new evidence, errors in the previous trial, and the credibility of witnesses.
3. On remand, the parties may need to re-present evidence, call new witnesses, and address any errors or issues from the previous trial.
4. The trial court may also consider the impact of any previous rulings or decisions on the issues to be addressed on remand.
5. Overall, retrials in civil cases are relatively uncommon, and navigating through the proceedings on remand requires a thorough understanding of the relevant legal principles and procedural rules. 1. The trial court has discretion to govern the proceedings on remand, but it is limited by judicial precedent and the law of the case doctrine.
2. The law of the case doctrine requires the trial court to follow prior appellate court rulings and remand instructions.
3. The trial court’s discretion on remand is also constrained by the interests of efficiency and finality.
4. After a retrial, parties cannot introduce new claims, defenses, or material issues for consideration in subsequent proceedings. – The party seeking discovery may bear the burden of persuading the trial court to reopen discovery.
– Courts are generally not inclined to reopen discovery and treat the new case as an opportunity to re-litigate old battles.
– Factors that courts may consider when deciding whether to reopen discovery include the adequacy of prior discovery, the imminence of trial, opposition to the request to reopen discovery, potential prejudice to the non-moving party, diligence in obtaining discovery for the first trial, the likelihood of the discovery leading to relevant information, the nature and expense of producing the information, the risk of a new trial without the sought information, and changed circumstances since the prior discovery. 1. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for his injuries.
2. The defendant’s failure to warn the plaintiff about the dangerous condition of the equipment was a breach of duty.
3. The plaintiff’s comparative negligence was a factor in determining the damages awarded.
4. The court found that the plaintiff was not required to prove the exact cause of the accident to recover damages. 1. A new trial vacates the previous proceeding and allows for the presentation of additional evidence unless it misleads the opposing party to their prejudice.
2. Parties may rely on evidence already presented, including transcripts, and should be prepared to cross-examine witnesses as if it were the first trial.
3. Admissions and stipulations made for the first trial are effective for the second trial unless expressly limited by their terms.
4. Former testimony given by a witness at another hearing or in a deposition may be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, but there is conflicting precedent on the issue that may need further testing. – Prevailing party attorney’s fees are available for the first and second trial if the winner at the first trial did not cause or contribute to the reason for reversal and remand.
– Insurers may be required to pay the opposing party’s attorneys’ fees in first party litigation in Florida.
– Insurers can recover their attorneys’ fees if the eventual judgment is at least 25% less than a settlement offer made before the first trial.
– The trial court has discretion to award reasonable attorneys’ fees, and may consider the conduct of the prevailing party at the first trial when awarding fees for a second trial. 1. Grabau is binding on all Florida trial courts.
2. Testimony might be excluded under Fla. Stat. § 90.403 if it is unfairly prejudicial or confusing.
3. The Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981.
4. The same principle applies to a second trial after an appeal.
5. The statute was a predecessor to Fla. Stat. § 627.428, but the two statutes are substantially the same.
https://www.jimersonfirm.com/blog/2020/04/what-litigants-need-to-know-about-retrials-of-civil-cases-in-florida/
Leave a Reply