W. H. TURNER, APPELLANT,
v.
A. T. SHELFER, APPELLEE
W. H. TURNER, APPELLANT,
A. T. SHELFER, APPELLEE
91 Fla. 682
Florida Supreme Court (1926)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 36 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court now being advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850 (Fla. 1930)…ury to disregard objectionable remarks of the State Attorney. [*861] To have granted the motion of counsel to declare a mistrial would have been out of keeping with the usual procedure. The procedure on a similar issue in the case of Brown v. State, 91 Fla. 682, 108 So. R. 842, indicates clearly that the ruling here did not constitute an error. In the present case, the apprehension of the State Attorney that the testimony of McKenney might be adverse and contradictory to his former sworn extra-judicial st…
-
Hall v. State, 136 Fla. 644 (Fla. 1939)…y given by-the witness on the former trial. While.the court did not, as is usually done, first examine the witness before allowing examination by counsel, the court was probably acting upon the general principles laid down [*679] in Brown v. State, 91 Fla. 682, 108 So. 842 and cases cited therein. The correctness of that ruling in this, a subsequent and different case, is not vitally important here. We might observe, however, that a trial court has considerable discretion in matters of this nature, and we…
-
Holstun & Son v. Embry, 124 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1936)…e rulings and decisions of the trial court promptly when made, that they may be corrected by the court itself if deemed erroneous. The exception points out wherein the excepting party claims to have been prejudiced by the ruling. See Brown v. State, 91 Fla. 682, 108 South. Rep. 842. “A motion for new trial and a ruling thereon with exception duly taken are necessary to question the sufficiency of all the evidence to sustain the verdict.” Osceola Fertilizer Co. v. Beville, 86 Fla. 479, text 483, 98 South.…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence