context: The other required indicia of a compromise verdict are also present here.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 710 F.2d 1480, 1488
citation_a.parenthetical: finding no compromise verdict because the jury consistently rejected the defendants' affirmative defenses, was not deadlocked, and did not attempt to qualify its verdict or request additional instructions
citation_a.sentence: See Westminster, 12 So.3d at 842 (holding that there was an impermissible compromise where the damages award was inadequate, liability was “hotly contested” at trial, the jury was deadlocked, the court charged the jury to continue deliberating to reach a decision, and less than one hour later the jury returned a verdict); Newalk v. Florida Supermarkets, Inc., 610 So.2d 528, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (holding that there was an impermissible compromise because the damages award was inadequate and “liability was hotly disputed by the parties and struggled over by the jury”); see also Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1488 (11th Cir.1983) (finding no compromise verdict because the jury consistently rejected the defendants’ affirmative defenses, was not deadlocked, and did not attempt to qualify its verdict or request additional instructions).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 12 So.3d 842, 842
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that there was an impermissible compromise where the damages award was inadequate, liability was "hotly contested" at trial, the jury was deadlocked, the court charged the jury to continue deliberating to reach a decision, and less than one hour later the jury returned a verdict
citation_b.sentence: See Westminster, 12 So.3d at 842 (holding that there was an impermissible compromise where the damages award was inadequate, liability was “hotly contested” at trial, the jury was deadlocked, the court charged the jury to continue deliberating to reach a decision, and less than one hour later the jury returned a verdict); Newalk v. Florida Supermarkets, Inc., 610 So.2d 528, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (holding that there was an impermissible compromise because the damages award was inadequate and “liability was hotly disputed by the parties and struggled over by the jury”); see also Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1488 (11th Cir.1983) (finding no compromise verdict because the jury consistently rejected the defendants’ affirmative defenses, was not deadlocked, and did not attempt to qualify its verdict or request additional instructions).