GINNY DURAN, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD NEFF, M. D., MERCY HOSPITAL, INC., GUILLERMO LEON, M. D., AND IMPERIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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 court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in refusing to delay proceedings for an expert witness.
Plaintiff's counsel requested a recess late on the first day of trial to present an expert witness, but the court denied the request and recessed unti…
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 Medical Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sought and received the right to have her case presented first on a Monday morning before the trial court. On Monday afternoon, at 5:10 P.M., counsel for the plaintiff suggested that the court take a short recess before permitting him to put on an expert witness, whose examination would be lengthy. The court declined to do this and recessed until the next day. Plaintiff was unable to produce the expert witness on the following day and a directed verdict was rendered against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff appeals and urges error in the trial judge’s refusal to take her expert’s testimony late on the first day.1 We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling. It is elementary that a trial judge must be given broad latitude in the control of causes before him, particularly jury cases, and on this record there is certainly no abuse of discretion demonstrated. Rose v. Yuille, 88 So. 2d 318 (Fla.1956); Bowen v. Manuel, 144 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); F & B Ceco, Inc. of Florida v. Galaxy Studios, Inc., 216 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Piver v. Birman, 311 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Therefore, the final judgment based on the directed verdict is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Although counsel for the appellant assigned other alleged errors in rulings by the trial judge, these were not made points on appeal and, therefore, they were deemed abandoned. Mitchell v. Mason, 61 Fla. 692, 55 So. 387 (1911); Saxton v. Miller, 230 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Mahoney v. State, 300 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Fla.R.App.P. 3.7i.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LoBUE v. Travelers Ins. Co., 388 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…he most compelling circumstances. Bradford v. State, 278 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1973); Clarke v. Sanders, 363 So. 2d 843 (Fla.4th DCA 1978). We recognize that the trial court has broad discretion to control the trial of cases before him. In Duran v. Neff, 366 So. 2d 169 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), a trial court’s ruling denying a request to continue trial proceedings into the evening hours in order to accommodate the appearance of a witness was upheld. In that case, for undisclosed reasons, the witness could not be produced…
-
Barclay v. Tranquilino Rivero and Laura Rivero, 388 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…oenaed witness allegedly favorable to them. It is fundamental that a litigant is entitled to his day in court. It is equally fundamental that a trial court must be given broad discretion in the setting and control of cases before it. Duran v. Neff, 366 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Thus, while a litigant is entitled to his day in court, it does not follow that the day is to be selected by the litigant, his attorney, or his witness. The trial in the present case occurred two years after complaint was brough…
-
Photo 60 OF Miami Int'l v. Warrick Roundtree and Kathy Roundtree, 541 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…nch recess by one hour to allow Photo 60 to call its witness. The trial court refused although it permitted a proffer of the physician’s report. While it is true that a trial court is accorded broad latitude in the control of cases, Duran v. Neff, 366 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), “[ejxcluding the testimony of a witness is a drastic remedy which should be invoked only under the most compelling circumstances.” LoBue v. Travelers Ins. Co., 388 So. 2d 1349, 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (citations omitted), rev. d…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bowen v. Manuel, 144 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Rose v. Yuille, 88 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1956)
- Mitchell v. Mason, 61 Fla. 692 (Fla. 1911)
- Mahoney v. State, 300 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- F & B Ceco v. Galaxy Studios, Inc., 216 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Saxton v. Miller, 230 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Piver v. Birman, 311 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)