Section 11.14 Motion for New Trial or for Additur or Remittitur

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

The same standards apply to a motion for a new trial in a condemnation action as any other civil case. The granting of the motion is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion.

State ex rel. Morrison v. McMinn, 88 Ariz. 261, 355 P.2d 900 (1960)

State ex rel. Herman v. Hague, 10 Ariz. App. 404, 459 P.2d 321 (1969)

The order granting a new trial needs to state with particularity the ground(s) for the granting of the motion, pursuant to Rule 59(m).

State v. Burton, 20 Ariz. App. 491, 514 P.2d 244 (1973) (statement that verdict is not justified by the evidence is not specific; statement that plaintiff should have been awarded damages meets Rule 59(m) requirements for specificity)

State ex rel. Herman v. Hague, 10 Ariz. App. 404, 459 P.2d 321 (1969) (statement that the damages and verdict were insufficient meets Rule 59(m) requirements)

Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., 8 Ariz. App. 221, 445 P.2d 169 (1968) (statement that verdict was excessive meets Rule 59(m) requirements)

The failure of the trial court to properly specify the grounds does not invalidate the order. The specificity of an order for new trial determines on appeal who has the burden of convincing the appellate court that the trial court did not err in ordering the new trial. If the order granting the new trial is not specific, the appellate court presumes that the jury verdict was correct, thus shifting the burden to the appellee to convince the court that the trial court did not err in ordering a new trial.

State v. Burton, 20 Ariz. App. 491, 514 P.2d 244 (1973)

Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., 8 Ariz. App. 221, 445 P.2d 169 (1968)

...