SCHUYLER NATIONAL BANK

v.

BOLLONG; SCHUYLER NATIONAL BANK V. BOLLONG; SCHUYLER NATIONAL BANK V. BOLLONG

Citator

Cited By (141 total)

• Atkinson v. State, 317 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
  …the court to disqualify the witnesses from testifying absent a finding that the rule violation was with the knowledge, connivance, or consent of the defendant or his counsel. In the leading case of Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893), the court stated: “If a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt, and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified, and the weight of a…
• Dumas v. State, 350 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1977)
  …le, however, is the criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment and due process right to present witnesses in his own behalf. See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). In Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893), the Court indicated the nature of the rule and consequence of its breach: “If a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt, and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his cond…
• Weiss v. United States, 122 F.2d 675 (5th Cir. 1941)
  …count for such rulings, but merely a rooted inclination to take the stricter view and a preference to err in favor p.f criminals and against innocent victims.” Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. 1, p. 615. In Moore v. United States, 150 U.S. 57, at page 60, 14 S.Ct. 26, at page 27, 37 L.Ed. 996, the court said: “We think it was within the discretion of the court to admit [*684] the testimony in dispute of Kitty Young. As intimated in the case of Alexander v. United States, 138 U.S. 353, 11 S.Ct. 350 [34 L.Ed. 954]…

  ← 1 / 2 →