CYNTHIA PROCTOR, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL KRAMER, M.D., APPELLEE
CYNTHIA PROCTOR, APPELLANT,
PAUL KRAMER, M.D., APPELLEE
394 So. 2d 121
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1980)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 13 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
LETTS, C. J., and HERSEY, J., concur.
MOORE, J., dissents with opinion.
Dissent
MOORE, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, we should follow the reasoning in Limond v. Llanio, 349 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977) and hold that the termination of the medical mediation panel’s jurisdiction did not occur, until the expiration of six months following the filing of the claim. By so holding, the common law complaint was filed within the applicable statute of limitations and the summary, final judgment in favor of the defendant was erroneous.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Rondy Jones v. State, 678 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ss is biased.” Included in the types of matters that demonstrate bias are prejudice, interest in the outcome of a case, and any motivation for a witness to testify untruthfully. Hair v. State, 428 So. 2d 760, 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Harmon v. State, 394 So. 2d 121,125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The ability to expose an improper impetus for a witness’ testimony is an essential component of the right to a jury trial. See Holt v. State, 378 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (exposure of witness’ motivation in testif…1 / 2
-
Livingston v. State, 678 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…e to develop the motive behind a witness’ testimony, “to show that the witness has colored his testimony to suit a plea agreement or other considerations from the state.” Pomeranz v. State, 634 So. 2d 1145, 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Harmon v. State, 394 So. 2d 121, 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Obviously, a defendant has a strong interest in discrediting a crucial state witness by showing bias, an interest in the outcome, or a possible ulterior motive for his in-court testimony. Phillips v. State, 572 So. 2d 16 (F…
-
Hair v. State, 428 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…05, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). In addition, Florida courts have ruled that a defendant must be afforded wide latitude in the use of cross-examination to discredit a witness. See D.C.; Nelson v. State, 395 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Harmon v. State, 394 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Blair v. State, 371 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). That the denial of the full right of cross-examination is harmful and fatal error is well-established. Coxwell v. State, 361 So. 2d 148 (Fla.1978); Porter; Nelson. Accordingly,…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dr. Richard v. Limond, 349 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)