POPPY K. CHIMERAKIS AND JAMES CHIMERAKIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANN E. EVANS, APPELLEE
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.
The appellate court affirmed a jury's verdict of not guilty in a negligence case, finding that while the trial court may have erred in excluding evidence related to a traffic code violation and a guilty plea, these errors were not prejudicial enough to warrant a reversal.
No, the appellate court held that even if the trial court erred in excluding the evidence and limiting cross-examination, the errors were not so prejudicial as to cause a miscarriage of justice.
“We have carefully considered appellants' contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel and have concluded that the errors complained of were not so prejudicial as to result in a miscarriage of justice.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for affirming the lower court's decision, indicating that the alleged errors did not meet the threshold for reversal.
Plaintiffs sued the defendant for negligence, alleging her operation of an automobile caused them injuries. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.…
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 Exclusion Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a final judgment entered for defendant pursuant to a jury verdict of not guilty in a suit charging defendant with negligence in the operation of her automobile causing injuries to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs seek reversal on the ground that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the Metropolitan Dade County Traffic Code, in excluding evidence of defendant’s plea of guilty to' the violation, and in denying plaintiffs the right to cross examine the defendant concerning her plea of guilty.
*447We have carefully considered appellants’ contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel and have concluded that the errors complained of were not so prejudicial as to result in a miscarriage of justice. Powell v. Wilson Lumber Co. of Florida, 115 Fla. 13, 155 So. 116; Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, Fla. App.1958, 104 So.2d 120.
Accordingly the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Poppy K. Chimerakis and James Chimerakis v. Evans, 221 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1969)…guilt. Accordingly, the decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded for a new trial consistent herewith. It is so ordered. CARLTON, ADKINS and CALDWELL (Retired), JJ., concur. THORNAL, Acting C. J., dissents with Opinion. . 219 So. 2d 446 (Opinion filed August 13, 1968). . Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Ine., 195 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1967) (plea of guilty) ; Pillet v. Ershick, 99 Fla. 483, 126 So. 784 (1930) (ordinance). . Blue & Gray Cab Co. v. Lowe, 143 Fla. 129, 196 So. 425 (1940…
-
Poppy K. Chimerakis and James Chimerakis v. Evans, 222 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…PER CURIAM. WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on August 13, 1968 (219 So. 2d 446) affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Dade County. Florida, in the above styled cause; and WHEREAS on review of this court’s judgment by certiorari, the Supreme Court [*439] of Florida, by its opinion and…
Authorities Cited
- Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Arsenault v. Thomas, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Jewell Powell v. Wilson Lumber Co., 115 Fla. 13 (Fla. 1934)