LANAI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A NEW LAND GARDENS CONDOMINIUMS, PETITIONER,
v.
MADDIE BERRY, RESPONDENT
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.
Lanai Development Corporation sought certiorari review of a county court judgment affirmed by the circuit court, challenging the exclusion of a critical witness at trial. The Third District Court of Appeal quashed the affirmance and remanded for a new trial, holding that excluding a witness for failure to include the witness's name in a pre-trial catalog—when no court order required such a catalog—constitutes reversible error.
The exclusion of a critical witness for failure to file a pre-trial catalog listing the witness, absent a court order requiring such a catalog, constitutes reversible error. The circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in affirming the county court judgment.
[1] Excluding a witness for failure to file a pre-trial catalog is reversible error when no order requiring such a catalog was entered by the court.
[2] A witness excluded for failure to file a pre-trial catalog is considered critical to the case when the witness is essential to the party's defense.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“in the absence of such an order, the law is clear that neither party is required to file a pre-trial catalog containing a witness list, that it is error for the trial court to exclude a witness for failure of the party calling him to file such a pre-trial catalog, and that such error is reversible where the excluded witness is critical to the case of the party calling him.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that a court cannot exclude a witness for non-compliance with an unprompted pre-trial catalog requirement.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial in Dade County Court, the judge excluded a bank records custodian witness offered by Lanai Development Corporation because the witness's …
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 Departure From Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
[*442] PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of an order of affirmance entered by the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida sitting in its appellate capacity in review of a final judgment entered in a Dade County Court action. The thrust of the petition herein is that the circuit court departed from essential requirements of law in affirming the county court judgment in that the county court committed reversible error in excluding a critical witness offered at trial by the petitioner. We agree and quash the order under review.
At the trial of this cause, the county court judge excluded a certain witness [a records custodian of a bank] called by the petitioner because the petitioner had not furnished the witness’ name on a pre-trial catalog. Our review of the record, however, reveals that no order was ever entered by the county court requiring such a pretrial catalog. In the absence of such an order, the law is clear that neither party is required to file a pre-trial catalog containing a witness list, that it is error for the trial court to exclude a witness for failure of the party calling him to file such a pre-trial catalog, and that such error is reversible where the excluded witness is critical to the case of the party calling him. Clarke v. Sanders, 363 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
As the witness in the instant case was critical to the petitioner’s defense of this action, it is clear that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in affirming the county court judgment below. A reversal was clearly mandated under applicable Florida law.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the order under review is quashed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions to reverse the county court judgment herein and remand the cause for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fogel v. Mirmelli, 413 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…st such witness on a pre-trial catalog when the listing of such witness was not specifically required by pre-trial order of the court. Mall Motel Corp. v. Wayside Restaurants, Inc., 377 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Lanai Development Corp. v. Berry, 373 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Clarke v. Sanders, 363 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In this case the pre-trial order requiring the parties to exchange written lists of the names of witnesses to be called at trial expressly excluded the listing of impeachment…
-
Mall Motel Corp. v. Wayside Rests., Inc., 377 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…tifying at trial for failure of the party calling him to list the name of such witness on a pretrial catalog when the listing of such witness was not specifically required by a pretrial discovery order of the court. Lanai Development Corp. v. Berry, 373 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Clarke v. Sanders, 363 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In the instant case, it is clear that the testimony of the defense witnesses Mr. Mandel and Mr. Uchitel was admissible as bad character impeachment evidence directed against…
-
Rodiaz Enters., Inc. v. Wiener, 427 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Lanai Development Corp. v. Berry, 373 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clarke v. Sanders, 363 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)