LILLIE MAE SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a motion to certify direct conflict regarding the sequestration of witnesses and the application of evidentiary rules to depositions. The court granted the motion and revised its prior opinion to clarify its reasoning.
The trial court has discretion to permit a witness to attend proceedings even if the rule of sequestration has been invoked, and absent an abuse of discretion, the ruling will not be disturbed. Federal case law interpreting similar rules is persuasive, but Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(c) does not explicitly state that Florida's evidentiary rules apply to depositions, unlike the federal rule.
“the trial court is vested with the discretion to permit a witness to attend proceedings even though the rule of sequestration of witnesses has been invoked, and that absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, the court’s ruling will not be disturbed on appeal.”
Establishes the standard of review for decisions on witness sequestration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner moved to certify a direct conflict with another case, Dardashti v. Singer, concerning the sequestration of witnesses and the applicatio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.280(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner moves to certify a direct conflict between the instant case and Dardashti v. Singer, 407 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Upon consideration of the motion and review of our previous decision in the instant case, we hereby grant the motion for certification and revise the opinion filed on June 21, 1990, as follows:
The full paragraph on page 3 shall read:
ERVIN, NIMMONS and WOLF, JJ., concur. . On the contrary, in Stano v. State, 473 So. 2d 1282 (Fla.1985), the supreme court held that the trial court is vested with the discretion to permit a witness to attend proceedings even though the rule of sequestration of witnesses has been invoked, and that absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, the court’s ruling will not be disturbed on appeal.
. Because the federal rule is nearly identical to the Florida rule, federal case law in which the rule is interpreted is pertinent and highly persuasive. Delta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, 218 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
. The court in Lumpkin may have been influenced by the fact that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c) states that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to depositions. This is unlike Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(c), which, although otherwise essentially tracking the federal rule, does not provide that Florida’s evidentiary rules apply to depositions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ndency of unresolved motions “is not sufficient ‘good cause shown’ within the purview of Rule 1.280(e) to justify postponing discovery for the protracted period of time which elapsed in the case at bar.”2 See also Smith v. Southern Baptist Hospital, 564 So. 2d 1115, 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. Sentinel Star Co., 316 So. 2d 607, 610-611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). In Scott v. Nelson, 697 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), this court denied a physician’s petition for certiorari to overturn…
-
Richardson v. Gyves, 874 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…deral rules, Florida has a longstanding tradition of relying on federal case law. Savage v. Rowell Distrib. Corp., 95 So. 2d 415 (Fla.1957); Delta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, 218 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Smith v. S. Baptist Hosp. of Fla., Inc., 564 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Policastro relied on federal case law which limits discovery under these circumstances. Prior to Policastro, the third district granted certiorari and quashed orders allowing discovery in class actions until the court determine…
-
Orthopedic Care Ctr. v. Parks, 155 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…overruling Orthopedic’s objection to item one of the Subpoena and Orthopedic appealed. ANALYSIS A “trial court has broad discretion in determining whether a protective order is warranted under the circumstances.” Smith v. S. Baptist Hosp. of Fla., 564 So. 2d 1115, 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Therefore, while the court’s factual findings will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion, Alvarez v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 75 So. 3d 789, 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), we review de novo the court’s interpretation a…
Authorities Cited
- Stano v. State, 473 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1985)
- The Deltona Corp. v. Bailey, 336 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1976)
- Brevard Cnty. & the Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Brevard v. Kimball, 388 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- DELTA Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, 218 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Dardashti v. Singer, 407 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Gross v. Sec. Tr. Co., 453 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Smith v. State, 459 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Waite v. Wellington Boats, Inc., 459 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)