EX PARTE S. E. WEBB & CO.

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 429 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
  …ere are a number of early Florida Supreme Court decisions which specifically hold that a lack of statutory authority imposing a duty is irrelevant to the applicability of the public records hearsay exception. See, e.g., Branch v. State, 76 Fla. 558, 80 So. 482, 485 (1918); Bell v. Kendrick, 25 Fla. 778, 6 So. 868, 869 (1889); see also Corbett v. Berg, 152 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). These cases, however, apply the common law rule which, in our view, has been specifically superseded by the statutor…
• Duke v. State, 134 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1938)
  …f the entire record it is apparent that no prejudice resulted to accused, the refusal of an election which might properly have been granted is no ground for reversal.” See also Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527, 25 So. 144; Branch v. State, 76 Fla. 558, 80 So. 482; Presley v. State, 61 Fla. 46, 54 So. 361; Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237, 23 So. 857; Murray v. State, 25 Fla. 528, 6 So. 498. The defendant has not shown wherein he was prejudiced by the Court’s refusal to require the State attorney to designate…
• Martin v. Karel, 106 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1932)
  …e acts alleged. Reference cannot be had to the bill of particulars to point out any defects in the indictment. See Middleton v. State, 74 Fla. 234, 76 South. Rep. 785; Ex parte Clarkson, 72 Fla. 220, 72 South. Rep. 675; Branch v. State, 76 Fla. 558, 80 South. Rep. 482. It is clear therefore that no attack may be made upon the information in this case because of any deficiencies in the bill of particulars. [*373] In the Middleton case, supra, this Court did say, speaking through the writer, that a “defect appeari…