STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,

v.

CHRISTINE MITCHELL, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Mobil Chem. Co. v. Hawkins, 440 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
  …d any appearance of impropriety. The public perception of our system of justice would hardly be enhanced by a rule which permitted a relative of a party to sit in judgment of that party’s dispute with an outside party. The case of State v. Rodgers, 347 So. 2d 610 (Fla.1977), wherein an underaged juror lied about her age in order to be seated on the jury, is clearly distinguishable. The fact that a person has not attained the age [*381] of majority may give rise to an inference that he or she lacks the maturi…
• Francisco Tejada, M.D. v. Roberts, 760 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
  …eenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 555, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984). A new trial is called for if there is evidence that the moving party “was not accorded a fair and impartial jury or that his substantial rights were prejudiced.... ” State v. Rodgers, 347 So. 2d 610, 613 (Fla.1977); see also Lowrey v. State, 705 So. 2d 1367, 1369-70 (Fla.1998). Unless the moving party has been adversely affected in a material way, however, the jury’s verdict should not be disturbed. See Florida Power Corp. v. Smith, 202 So. 2d…
• Lowrey v. State, 705 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1998)
  …and note that the trial court expressly applied this test in its order granting a new trial. Id. at 241. The requirements of this three-part test were fully met here. In addition, however, I would recede from our prior opinion in State v. Rodgers, 347 So. 2d 610 (Fla.1977), for the same reasons enumerated in Justice Hatchett’s dissent therein. This Court did not explain in Rodgers, and has not explained today, the practical implications of its requirement that an innocent litigant demonstrate actual prejudi…

  ← 1 / 3 →

Authorities Cited

• Green v. State, 113 Fla. 237 (Fla. 1933)
• Woodburn v. Woodburn, 333 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
• Mitchell v. State, 333 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)