DAVID SHOLTZ, ET AL.,
v.
STATE, EX REL. ELSTON BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
DAVID SHOLTZ, ET AL.,
STATE, EX REL. ELSTON BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
122 Fla. 261
Florida Supreme Court (1935)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 165 So. 43 · 165 So. 44
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
This is a companion case to the case of Sholtz, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. State of Florida, ex rel. Ben Hur Life Association, a Corporation, Defendant in Error, case No. 2185, opinion and judgment in which is this day filed. See page 249.
The judgment in this case should be affirmed on authority of the opinion and judgment in that companion case.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCLOUD v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1976)…, Inc. v. Cutler, 212 So. 2d 37 (Fla.4th DCA 1968). Here, however, the only issue was whether to permit leading questions to be asked of an uncooperative witness. . Anderson v. State, 88 Fla. 93, 101 So. 202 (1924). . Clark v. State, 122 Fla. 810, 165 So. 44 (1935). . See Robinson v. State, 161 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Connley v. United States, 46 F. 2d 53 (9th Cir.1931). . We note there is no suggestion that Robinson’s deposition was improperly or unfairly taken, or that the facts adduced from…
-
Andrews v. State, 172 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…merit to the grounds for reversal asserted by the first point. The trial judge’s interrogation of witnesses was of such nature as to clarify the issues and was conducted within the bounds of his judicial authority. See Clark v. State, 122 Fla. 310, 165 So. 44 (1935), and Williams v. State, 143 So. 2d 484 (Fla.1962). Appellant’s second point is likewise without merit. The general rule in this jurisdiction requires exclusion of collateral evidence that tends to suggest the commission of an independent cri…
-
Younghans v. State, 97 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)…e additional interrogation by the court in order to determine their substance. Certainly, if the trial judge was not clear as to what a witness was attempting to state, he should have the witness clarify the statements. Clark v. State, 122 Fla. 310, 165 So. 44. The participation by the court in the questioning of the witness was not shown to have in any way prejudiced the right of the defendant to a fair trial. We find no error on assignments five and six. The crime of which the defendant is accused is p…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence