ARTHUR POLACEK, APPELLANT,

v.

RESTAURANTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Raysor v. State, 272 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
  ….) “We are therefore compelled to the conclusion that the denial of this right to the appellant was a substantial prejudicial error which requires a new trial.” See also Davis v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 256 So. 2d 22; Cagnina v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 577, and Wyatt v. State, Fla. App.1972, 270 So. 2d 47. In further extension, we are at a loss as a practical matter to know just how any criminal defendant could in fact make a demonstration of error because of the refusal of the trial court to follow t…
• Warfield Raymond Wike, Jr. v. State, 648 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1994)
  …. 4th DCA 1991); Crowley v. State, 558 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Terwilliger v. State, 535 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Gari v. State, 364 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Dampier v. State, 336 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Cagnina v. State, 175 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). In fact, this is true even though in 1968 section 918.09 was incorporated as rule 3.250 and in 1970 section 918.09 was repealed. See, e.g., Wilson v. State, 284 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (even though the opening and closing of…
• Preston v. State, 260 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1972)
  …rosecution-defense-prosecution. . See State v. Raper, 203 N.C. 489, 166 S.E. 314 (1932); Birge v. State, 92 So. 2d 819 (Fla.1957); Carter v. State, 101 So. 2d 911 (Fla.App.1st, 1958); Faulk v. State, 104 So. 2d 519 (Fla.1958); and Cagnina v. State, 175 So. 2d 577 (Fla.App.3rd, 1965). . See discussion in 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 983 (1961), and cases cited therein. . This proposition has been disputed as being psychologically unsound: see Kunkel and Geis, Order of Final Argument in Minnesota Criminal Trials…

Authorities Cited

• Schatz v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 128 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)