Case Name: James HUTCHINS, Appellant, v. CITY OF HIALEAH, a municipality, and O. Harris, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1963-06-04
Citations: 153 So. 2d 864
Docket Number: No. 62-774
Parties: James HUTCHINS, Appellant, v. CITY OF HIALEAH, a municipality, and O. Harris, Appellees.
Judges: Before CARROLL, DONALD K., HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 153
Pages: 864–864

Head Matter:
James HUTCHINS, Appellant, v. CITY OF HIALEAH, a municipality, and O. Harris, Appellees.
No. 62-774.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
June 4, 1963.
Kenneth L. Ryskamp, Alfred Gustinger, Jr., and Irving Whitman, Miami, for appellant.
Miles & Nelson, Plialeah, for appellees.
Before CARROLL, DONALD K., HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We are confronted again with an appeal from an order granting a new trial which failed to include a statement by the trial judge of any ground or grounds upon which such order was based, as required by statute and court rule (§ 59.07(4) Fla.Stat., F.S.A., rule 2.8(f) F.R.C.P., 31 F.S.A.). The absence of grounds in the order requires reversal. See Ebersole v. Tepperman, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 564; Means v. Douglas, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 88; Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 240; Gaskill v. Montague, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 420; Ponte v. Lattin, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 260; Morton v. Staples, Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 806; Hammett v. Lyte Lyne, Inc., Fla.1950, 150 So.2d 235. The order for new trial is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions to reinstate the verdict and judgment.
Reversed and remanded with directions.