JOHN DICKEY AND FRANCES DICKEY, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FUAD H. HANNA, M.D., 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.
The appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff was correctly allowed to open and close jury arguments despite the defendant's counterclaim. The court found no reason to deviate from the general rule that the plaintiff has this right.
No, the trial judge did not err. The general rule is that the plaintiff is entitled to open and close jury arguments, and the defendants failed to demonstrate a valid reason for deviating from this rule.
“As a general rule, the plaintiff is entitled to open and close,1 and the appellant has not demonstrated any reason for this rule not being applied in the instant case.”
This quote establishes the legal principle the court relied upon to affirm the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants, who were also counterclaimants, lost at trial. The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred by allowing the plaintiff…
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.
Appellants were defendants and counter-claimants in the court below wherein the verdict and judgment was adverse to them.
The point on appeal is whether it was error for the trial judge to allow plaintiff the opening and closing argument to the jury in view of the counter-claim being asserted by the defendants.
During the charge conference, prior to' the closing argument, the trial judge ruled that the plaintiff’s counsel would open for five minutes, directing his remarks exclusively to plaintiff’s claim. Thereafter, the defendants-counter-claimants were allotted forty-five minutes to respond to the plaintiff’s claim and to support their coun*599ter-claim. Finally, plaintiff would be permitted forty minutes within which to defend against the counter-claim argument.
Appellants contend reversible error was committed by the trial judge in denying them the right to open and close the argument.
As a general rule, the plaintiff is entitled to open and close,1 and the appellant has not demonstrated any reason for this rule not being applied in the instant case.
Finding no reversible error the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.