WILLIAM SEWARD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that prejudicial remarks made by the trial judge during the proceedings were applicable to this case as well. This decision was based on a prior ruling in a companion case.
Yes, the prejudicial remarks made by the trial judge were grounds for reversal, as they applied equally to this case as they did to the companion case.
“The Attorney General concedes that the remarks of the trial judge in the case cited apply equally as well to the instant case, and we agree.”
This quote establishes the basis for the court's agreement with the appellant that the prejudicial remarks were applicable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case was consolidated for trial with a companion case, Seward v. State, which was previously reversed by the Florida Supreme Court due to prejudi…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This is a companion case to Seward v. State, Fla., 59 So. 2d 529, reversed by this court because of the prejudicial remarks of the trial judge. , The two cases were consolidated for trial and submitted to-the same jury at the same time. The Attorney General concedes that the remarks of the trial judge in the case cited apply equally as well to the instant case, and we agree. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed upon the authority of Seward v. State, Fla., 59 So. 2d 529, and the cause remanded for new' trial. Having been reversed for-the-reasons, set forth in the opinion in that, case, it is unnecessary to consider the other questions raised on this appeal. • '
Reversed and remanded.
ROBERTS, C. J., THOMAS and MATHEWS, JJ., and LOPEZ, Associate Justice, concur. '
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ACE Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Boyd, 100 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1958)…the responsibility of the Judge is to examine the evidence and determine whether under the law and facts the Court is justified in entering the decree recommended by the master. Lyon v. Lyon, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 679; McMullen v. McMullen, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 179. We have been referred to nothing in the Rules of the respondent Commission or the statutes applicable to procedures before the Commission which limits the Commission to a consideration of exceptions only at final hearing after a matter has been re…
-
Woolfson v. Alynn Rose, 448 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…o examine and carefully consider the evidence and determine whether under the law and the facts the court is justified in entering the decree recommended by the Master.’ ”) (quoting Lyon v. Lyon, 54 So. 2d 679, 680 (Fla.1951)); McMullen v. McMullen, 68 So. 2d 179 (Fla. [*1178] 1953) (reversing because of insufficient evidence the court’s entry of final decree of divorce, notwithstanding lack of exceptions to master’s report recommending entry of decree); Bell v. Bell, 307 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). See a…
Authorities Cited
- Seward v. State, 59 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1952)