Court Opinion

ID: 9585103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:56:14.647761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:48.144232
License: Public Domain

The following opinion was filed April 5, 1955 :
Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). On the motion for rehearing the question has been raised that the order for new trial appealed from did not set forth “the reasons that prompted the court to make such order ... in detail” as required by sec. 270.49 (2), Stats., when such order for new trial is granted in the interest of justice.
In cases like the instant one, when such reasons have been sét forth in detail in a separate memorandum decision, we are of the opinion that there would have been sufficient compliance with the statute if the order had stated, for example, that the new trial was being granted “in the interest of justice for the reasons stated in the court’s memorandum decision filed on the motions after verdict.” In other words, an incorporation by reference into the order of the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion which prompted the court to grant the new trial in the interest of justice would be sufficient, provided such reasons were stated in detail in the decision. Alexander v. Meyers (1952), 261 Wis. 384, 386, 52 N. W. (2d) 881. However, the order in the instant case did not do this and we must hold that the mere statement in *22bthe order “that the verdict is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence” standing alone does not state in sufficient detail the reasons which prompted the granting of the new trial to constitute a compliance with the statute.
This holding that the order does not meet the requirements of the statute would require a reversal unless this court should deem this to be a proper case in which to exercise the discretionary power of this court to order a new trial when we' are convinced that the same is necessary to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice. It is apparent from that which we stated in our original opinion herein that we feel rather strongly that such a miscarriage of justice would occur if judgment were to be entered upon the verdict in favor of the appellants. While this court exercises such discretionary power but sparingly, we deem this is a proper case in which so to do. We, therefore, conclude that the order for a new trial must be affirmed for the reason last stated.
The motion for rehearing is denied without costs.