DANTE DINO D/B/A DINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
NICHOLAS P. O'DAWE, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1963-12-13
No. 63-141
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
158 So. 2d 562 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1963) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The sole question presented upon this appeal is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in allowing the plaintiff to read into evidence the deposition of a witness. The controlling procedural provision is found in Rule 1.21(d) (3), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. “The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: * * * 3, that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment; * * ”. The appellant has failed to show an abuse of the discretion which the rule reposes in the trial judge. Cf., Driscoll v. Morris, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 314, 316.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Burgin v. Fla. GAS Utils. Co. & Fla. Gas Co., 172 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
    …a continuance in a trial of a chancery cause. We hold that appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of the discretion which Rule 1.21(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., reposes in the trial judge. Cf., Dino v. O’Dawe, Fla.App.1963, 158 So. 2d 562. Affirmed.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw