GRACE S. KERR, APPELLANT,

v.

RONALD A. KERR, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• In re THE Fla. BAR: Rules of Civil Procedure, 265 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1972)
  …to misconstrue the plain language of the rule and cause complications that the committee and the legislature did not envisage. See Owca v. Zemzicki, Fla.App., 137 So. 2d 876; Cook v. Lichtblau, Fla.App., 176 So. 2d 523, and Bondy v. West, Fla.App., 219 So. 2d 117. The committee hopes the amendment to subdivision (b) will show that the intent of the rule is to permit a deposition taken of an expert in conformity with any rule for the taking of a deposition to be admitted, if otherwise admissible under the rul…
• Marine Exploration Co., Inc. v. McCOY, 308 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
  …as related to him, in whole or in part, by the appellee. Appellants cite three cases as support for their contention: Marshall v. Papineau, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 786; Troj v. Smith, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 285; and, Bondy v. West, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 117. These cases stand for a well-recognized proposition of the law of evidence, namely that testimony from an “examining doctor” is undesirable. As it was noted by the court in Marshall v. Papineau, supra, testimony from an “examining doctor” is consi…
• Ross v. State, 287 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
  …Papineau, Fla.App.1st 1961, 132 So. 2d 786. On the other hand, an “examining” physician who is presumably consulted with litigation in view is not allowed so to testify. Troj v. Smith, Fla.App.2d 1967, 199 So. 2d 285; Bondy v. West, Fla.App.2d 1969, 219 So. 2d 117.…

Authorities Cited

• Tanner v. Tanner, 194 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
• Pendleton v. Pendleton, 189 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)