EVERETT A. COLLINS, ADMINISTRATOR AD LITEM OF THE ESTATE OF ELONZO P. DANN, JR., DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
HUBERT FARLEY, APPELLEE
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.
In this personal injury appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reverses and remands for a new trial, holding that the trial judge committed reversible error by excluding the defendant's use of the plaintiff's income tax returns to impeach the plaintiff's testimony regarding lost earnings.
The trial judge committed prejudicial, reversible error in excluding the income tax returns. Income tax returns are admissible evidence bearing on the issue of lost earnings and may be used for impeachment purposes. The court may not presume that the plaintiff failed to report gratuities as income.
“The court may not presume that the plaintiff failed to report such gratuities as income. The internal revenue tax returns were admissible evidence bearing upon the issue of plaintiff's loss of earnings.”
Establishes the holding that tax returns are admissible for impeachment and that courts cannot presume non-reporting of gratuities.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff (Collins), a taxi cab driver, claimed loss of earnings in what appears to be a personal injury case. The defendant (Farley) sought to us…
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 Preservation Of Error For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Farley v. Collins, Fla.1962, 146 So.2d 366, reversed this court’s opinion rendered in Collins v. Farley, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 31, and remanded for further proceedings consistent therewith. Accordingly, the matter was set for re-argument by the parties on all points not disposed of by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The extent of the Supreme Court’s consideration of our previous decision is clearly set forth in Farley v. Collins, supra, and reference can be made to that decision for a full discussion of the essential facts and legal issues involved.
In our prior opinion we mentioned that the appellant had raised two additional points on appeal which we found unnecessary to rule upon because of our holding on other grounds. It now becomes incumbent upon us to decide these points, to-wit:
1. whether certain comments made by the trial judge were improper and necessitated a new trial, and
2. whether the ruling of the trial judge which precluded the use by the defendant of plaintiff’s income tax returns for impeachment of plaintiff’s claimed loss of earnings, was reversible error.
As to the first point, we hold that the defendant failed to preserve the point for appeal by failing to make a timely objection to the remarks at the time of trial. Marsh v. Sarasota County, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 312.
As to the second point, we hold that the trial judge committed prejudicial, reversible error by refusing to allow the defendant to use the plaintiff’s income tax returns on cross-examination for the purpose of impeaching plaintiff’s testimony as to his loss of earnings. The trial judge erroneously concluded that the income tax returns of the plaintiff, a taxi cab driver, were unreliable indications of his true income because a large portion of such income was from gratuities. The court may not presume that the plaintiff failed to -report such gratuities as income. The internal revenue tax returns were admissible evi*595dence bearing upon the issue of plaintiff’s loss of earnings. Merriman v. Cities Service Gas Co., 11 F.R.D. 584 (W.D.Mo.1951); Davis v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 227 N.C. 561, 42 S.E.2d 905; Graham Farm Land Co. v. Commonwealth, 363 Pa. 571, 70 A.2d 219.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Lusk v. State, 446 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1984)…given curative instructions to disregard any inferences that could be drawn from said remarks. Because of a lack of an objection we must hold that the issue was not preserved for appeal and thus is not properly before this Court. Collins v. Farley, 147 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Even if this issue were properly preserved, the trial court’s remarks do not constitute grounds for reversal. Viewed in relationship to the totality of circumstances, the above comments clearly appear incidental within the scheme…
-
Suiero v. State, 248 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…the state from introducing the same evidence in the trial below; that the utilization of such evidence below constituted double jeopardy. It is fundamental that appellate review is confined to the record on appeal, Sheldon v. Tiernan, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 593. A review of the record on appeal in the case sub judice reveals that the record is devoid of any evidence pertaining to the Dade County proceedings. Nor does the record contain a transcript of the proceedings before the trial court either corrobora…
-
Thornber v. City OF Fort Walton Beach, 534 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…show cause order, counsel for appellant continued to argue that the documents he seeks to have this court consider are properly contained in the record. It is axiomatic that appellate review is confined to the record on appeal. Sheldon v. Tiernan, 147 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Permenter v. Bank of Green Cove Springs, 136 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). Rule 9.200(a)(1) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure states that the “record shall consist of the original documents, exhibits, and transcripts…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marsh v. Sarasota Cnty., 97 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Farley v. Everett A. Collins ad litem of the Estate of Elonzo P. Dann, Jr., 146 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1962)
- Everett A. Collins ad litem of the Estate of Elonzo P. Dann, Jr. v. Farley, 137 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)