Rudolph v. Gleason

Rudolph v. Gleason, 339 So. 2d 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided: November 23, 1976
Docket: No. 75-1290
Judges: Pearson, Hendry and Haverfield
Citations: 339 So. 2d 298

Cited by 5 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion

339 So.2d 298 (1976)

Muriel RUDOLPH and Judith Male D/B/a Muriel Rudolph Associates, Appellants,

Jackie GLEASON, an Individual, et al., Appellees.

No. 75-1290.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

November 23, 1976.

*299 Storace, Hall & Hauser and Andrew M. Leinoff, Miami, for appellants.

Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(plaintiff's motion for new trial properly denied where defendant's conversation with juror merely concerned juror's reluctance to state her age on voir dire examination)

Del Monte Banana Co. v. Chacon, 466 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Del Monte Banana Co. v. Chacon466 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Dozier v. Hodges849 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
Colosimo v. Pennsylvania Electric Co.486 A.2d 1378 (Pa. 1984)
Metro. Dade Cty. v. Frank J. Rooney627 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Singletary ex rel. Barnett Banks Trust Co. v. Lewis619 So. 2d 351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Most recent

Dozier v. Hodges849 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
Metro. Dade Cty. v. Frank J. Rooney627 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Singletary ex rel. Barnett Banks Trust Co. v. Lewis619 So. 2d 351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Del Monte Banana Co. v. Chacon466 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Colosimo v. Pennsylvania Electric Co.486 A.2d 1378 (Pa. 1984)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	First NAT. Bank IN Tarpon Springs v. Bliss, 56 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1952)	12
	Concord Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Bookbinder, 227 So. 2d 888 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)	2
	Smith v. State, 339 So. 2d 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)	1

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list