SIDNEY GOLDBERG, APPELLANT,

v.

MILTON WEINKLE, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (29 total)

• Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)
  …at counsel may not use the terms "liar” or "lied” regarding a witness when there is record support to question the witness's credibility. . We disapprove Tremblay v. Santa Rosa County, 688 So. 2d 985, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), and Bullock v. Branch, 130 So. 2d 74, 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), to the extent that those decisions stand for the proposition that a complaining party need not establish the harmfulness of improper, but unobjected-to, closing argument in order to be granted a new trial based on such argum…
• LeRETILLEY v. Harris, 354 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
  …they collectively constitute improper, so called, “golden rule” arguments. Klein v. Herring, 347 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Stewart v. Cook, 218 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Miku v. Olmen, 193 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Bullock v. Branch, 130 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). The difficulty in the case now before us, is whether these given arguments are reversible in the light of the inadequacy of the objection or outright absence of the same. Counsel for the appellant did object after the first of…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Schreidell v. Rabbi Bernard P. Shoter, 500 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
  …s in the plaintiffs shoes, commonly referred to as a “golden rule” argument, is impermissible and constitutes reversible error. Klein v. Herring, 347 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Miku v. Olmen, 193 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Bullock v. Branch, 130 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). Such an argument is improper because it encourages the jury to depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence. Ivy v. Security Barge Lines, Inc., 585 F. 2d 73…

Authorities Cited

• Forbes v. The Fort Lauderdale Mercantile Co., 83 Fla. 66 (Fla. 1922)
• Cent. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Davis, 102 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1958)
• Barcus v. Wood, 92 Fla. 763 (Fla. 1926)
• Davis v. The Am. Agric. Chem. Co., 87 Fla. 525 (Fla. 1924)