PHILIP MORRIS USA INC.
v.
BARBRA HOFFMAN, ETC.
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.
A trial court's evidentiary rulings and denial of a motion for new trial are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed absent clear abuse.
[1] Trial court evidentiary rulings excluding evidence on grounds of remoteness in time and purpose or under Florida Statute section 90.403 based on unfair prejudice outweigh…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The determination of relevancy is within the discretion of the trial court. Where a trial court has weighed probative value against prejudicial impact before reaching its decision to admit or exclude evidence, an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
Standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings
Philip Morris USA appealed from a judgment in a case tried in Miami-Dade County circuit court, challenging the trial court's evidentiary rulings and d…
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 Relevance Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Gerson & Schwartz, P.A., and Edward Schwartz; Celene Humphries, PLLC and Celene Humphries (Spring City, TN), for appellee. Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Ruchimora v. Grullon, 307 So. 3d 95, 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“We review the denial of a motion for new trial and a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.”); Hendry v. Zelaya, 841 So. 2d 572, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“A trial court has broad discretion concerning the admissibility of evidence and its rulings will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”); Thigpen v. United Parcel Services, Inc., 990 So. 2d 639, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (finding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence because (1) it was too remote in time and purpose to be relevant, and (2) under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed any relevance of testimony; “It is well settled that ‘[t]he determination of relevancy is within the discretion of the trial court. Where a trial court has weighed probative value against prejudicial impact before reaching its decision to admit or exclude evidence, an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.’” (quoting Sims v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131, 133 (Fla. 1991))); see also Sims v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131, 133 (Fla. 1991) (“The weighing of relevance versus prejudice or confusion is best performed by the trial judge who is present and best able to compare the two.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- M. David Sims, M.D. v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1991)
- Sompun Ruchimora v. Grullon, 307 So. 3d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)