Alvarez v. Mauney
| Decision Date | 14 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 5069,5069 |
| Citation | 175 So.2d 57 |
| Parties | Joseph C. ALVAREZ, Appellant, v. Mary Helton MAUNEY and Harold V. Mauney, her husband, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
O'Connell & Cooper, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Farish & Farish, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
Appellant seeks review of a final judgment for Appellees entered on a jury verdict in a negligence action arising out of an automobile collision. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the Appellees, Plaintiffs below, on the issue of liability, and the case was tried solely on the issue of damages.
Appellant's first point on appeal asserts that the trial court committed error in denying his motion for a mistrial after counsel for Appellees' remarks concerning insurance during the voir dire examination of the jury.
The Supreme Court of Florida, in the case of Lambert v. Higgins, Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 631, stated:
We fail to find any abuse of discretion.
It also appears from the record that there was no objection or motion for mistrial during the voir dire examination by counsel for Appellant. It is our conclusion, and we so hold, that the objection, if any, to the questions concerning insurance asked during the voir dire examination, was waived by failure to object or move for a mistrial until after the jury was accepted.
The second point raised by Appellant as error was the trial court's refusal to allow cross-examination of Appellees' chief medical witness regarding his financial and professional association with Appellees' attorneys in past and present cases and his being under censure by the County Medical Association.
In H. I. Holding Company v. Dade County, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 693, it was stated as follows:
'It is within the reasonable discretion of the court to determine to what length it will go in permitting cross-examination of a witness for the purpose of showing interest, bias or prejudice of the witness. * * *'
The matter of cross-examining a witness to show bias rests largely in the trial court's discretion, and its rulings will not be disturbed absent a clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Del Monte Banana Co. v. Chacon
...prejudice. See Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94, 41 So. 385, 394 (1906); Hair v. State, 428 So.2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Alvarez v. Mauney, 175 So.2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); § 90.608(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1983); 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence and Witnesses § 602 (1981). It is within the reasonable discreti......
-
Binger v. King Pest Control
...240 So.2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); County of Brevard v. Interstate Engineering Co., 224 So.2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Alvarez v. Mauney, 175 So.2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). The only prior decision of this Court directly addressing the issue of witness disclosure leaned toward this fourth approa......
-
State ex rel. Herman v. Saldamando
...F.2d 477 (6th Cir 1969); Springfield v. Housing Authority of City of Little Rock, 227 Ark. 1023, 304 S.W.2d 938 (1957); Alvarez v. Mauney, Fla.App., 175 So.2d 57 (1965); Waukegan Park District. v. First National Bank of Lake Forest, 222 Ill.2d 238, 174 N.E.2d 824 (1961). As stated in Tank, ......
-
Fernandez-Silva v. Lang, FERNANDEZ-SILV
...C.J., and NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358, 360 (1940); Alvarez v. Mauney, 175 So.2d 57, 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Rosenstein v. Raticoff, 265 So.2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA ...
-
Table of Cases
...161 Colo. 309, 421 P.2d 728 (1966): 35.6(7) FLORIDA ______________________________________________________________ Alvarez v. Mauney 175 So.2d 57 (Fla. App. 1965): 16.8(2)(c) Black v. Palm Beach County, 342 So.2d 1034 (Fla. App. 1977): 36.6(3)(a) Collier v. McKesson, 121 So.2d 673 (Fla. App......
-
§16.8 Strategic and Practical Considerations
...party failed to disclose pursuant to pretrial order and testimony would be cumulative, raising no new issues); see also Alvarez v. Mauney, 175 So.2d 57 (Fla. App. 1965). In one case, the court excluded the expert as a witness even though opposing counsel made no objection to the nondisclosu......