STRYBUC REPLACEMENT HARDWARE, LLC
v.
WINDOW PARTS WAREHOUSE, INC.
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.
A trial judge's sua sponte interference with witness impeachment does not constitute reversible error when reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.
[1] A trial judge in a civil case should act as a neutral umpire and generally should not make objections for a party.
[2] A trial judge crosses the line from neutrality when they become an active participant in the adversarial process.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A trial judge crosses the line when he becomes an active participant in the adversarial process”
The court acknowledged the general principle that a trial judge should remain a neutral umpire and not make objections for the opposition, citing Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Velez
Strybuc Replacement Hardware sued Window Parts Warehouse. During trial, the trial court sua sponte interfered with Strybuc's attempt to impeach a witn…
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 Impeachment Of Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 21, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-2076 Lower Tribunal No. 20-13023
________________
Strybuc Replacement Hardware, LLC,
Appellant,
vs.
Window Parts Warehouse, Inc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. The Kobak Law Firm, P.A., and Paul L. Kobak, for appellant. Rosenberg & Cummings, PLLC, and Marc Edward Rosenthal, and Casey Ryan Cummings (Ft. Lauderdale); Cowen Edwards, PLLC, and Paul David Edwards (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Strybuc Replacement Hardware, LLC, appeals a Final
Judgment in favor of Appellee, Window Parts Warehouse, Inc., and an order denying Strybuc’s Motion for New Trial. Strybuc argues that the trial court’s sua sponte interference with the impeachment of a witness constitutes reversible error. See Ruchimora v. Grullon, 307 So. 3d 95, 97 (Fla. 3d DCA
2020) (“We review the denial of a motion for new trial and a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.”). We disagree.
Generally, it is not the role of a trial judge in a civil case to make objections for the opposition; rather, a trial judge should remain a neutral umpire. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Velez, 365 So. 3d 1194, 1198 (Fla.
3d DCA 2023) (“A trial judge crosses the line when he becomes an active participant in the adversarial process . . . .” (quoting Great Am. Ins. Co. v.
2000 Island Blvd. Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 153 So. 3d 384, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA
2014))). Here, however, we do not find reversible error based on the record before us. See E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Farnes, 697 So. 2d 825, 826 (Fla. 1997) (“[The] ‘abuse of discretion’ standard is highly deferential . . . .”);
In re Doe, 325 So. 3d 99, 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (holding that, because
“[t]he abuse of discretion standard is highly deferential . . . the order must be affirmed unless ‘no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the court’” (quoting Treloar v. Smith, 791 So. 2d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA
2001))).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Strybuc Replacement Hardware, LLC v. Window Parts Warehouse, Inc., 365 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…of Appellee, Window Parts Warehouse, Inc., and an order denying Strybuc’s Motion for New Trial. Strybuc argues that the trial court’s sua sponte interference with the impeachment of a witness constitutes reversible error. See Ruchimora v. Grullon, 307 So. 3d 95, 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“We review the denial of a motion for new trial and a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.”). We disagree. Generally, it is not the role of a trial judge in a civil case to make objections for the oppos…1 / 2
-
DOE (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Boyd B. Farnes, 697 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1997)
- Great Am. Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. 2000 Island Boulevard Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 153 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Nash v. Occidental Chems., Inc., 791 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Strybuc Replacement Hardware, LLC v. Window Parts Warehouse, Inc., 365 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Sompun Ruchimora v. Grullon, 307 So. 3d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)