Court Opinion

ID: 9932735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:41:08.566767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:09.435591
License: Public Domain

In Gold Kist, Inc. v. Tedder, 580 So.2d 1321, 1322
(Ala. 1991), this Court said:
 "The granting or denial of a motion for new trial rests largely within the discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of that discretion carries with it a presumption of correctness that will not be disturbed on appeal unless some legal right was abused and the record plainly and palpably shows that the trial court was in error. Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Coan, 435 So.2d 106
(Ala.Civ.App. 1983); Holcombe v. Blackwell, 382 So.2d 566 (Ala.Civ.App. 1980)." *Page 952
In Johnson v. Hodge, 291 Ala. 142, 143, 279 So.2d 123, 124
(1973), this Court noted "that an appellate court is more reluctant to reverse an order granting a new trial than one denying a new trial."
The State says in its brief that "[i]t is clear . . . that the verdict of the jury was plainly and palpably supported by the evidence." I cannot agree; I must respectfully dissent.
SHORES, J., concurs.