MURIEL RUDOLPH AND JUDITH MALE D/B/A MURIEL RUDOLPH ASSOCIATES, APPELLANTS,
v.
JACKIE GLEASON, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Court affirmed judgment for defendant Gleason in contract action, holding that brief elevator remarks between defendant and juror did not constitute reversible error and that trial judge properly denied motion for new trial.
A trial judge does not abuse discretion in denying a motion for new trial based on alleged juror contact when the defendant's passing comments to a juror are speculative as to prejudice.
[1] Brief passing remarks between a defendant and a juror in an elevator, consisting of comments about the juror's reluctance to disclose her age, do not constitute grounds f…
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 intelligencePlaintiffs sued defendant Jackie Gleason in a contract action. During the second day of trial, Gleason encountered a female juror in an elevator and m…
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 Contract Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal three adverse final judgments in this contract action and primarily urge as reversible error the denial of their motion for new trial. The ground for this motion was that defendant Jackie Gleason communicated with a juror during the trial which may have influenced the juror. The record reflects that on the morning of the second day of trial while defendant Gleason was in an elevator with one of the woman jurors, she remarked to him that she had been reluctant to give her age upon voir dire examination. Defendant responded that it was a woman’s prerogative not to say how old she is. These passing comments were the extent of their conversation. The contention that prejudice to the appellants resulted therefrom is pure speculation and we find that the trial judge did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial. See First National Bank in Tarpon Springs v. Bliss, 56 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1952); Concord Shopping Center, Inc. v. Bookbinder, 227 So. 2d 888 (Fla.3d DCA 1969) and Annot., 62 A.L.R.2d 382 (1958).
We also considered appellants’ argument that the trial court erred in failing to admonish Mr. Gleason for his alleged constant failure to properly respond to counsel’s questions on cross-examination and conclude it is lacking in merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- First Nat. Bank in Tarpon Springs v. Bliss, 56 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1952)
- Concord Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Bookbinder, 227 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)