21 May

Sticky

Motion for Directed Verdict (or to Set Aside the Verdict) is an Important Trial Consideration

After the plaintiff puts on its case-in-chief, you, as the defendant, move for a directed verdict. (Check out this article too for more on directed verdicts.) The court denies the motion for a directed verdict. You put on your defense and then the case is submitted to the jury. The jury returns a verdict in favor the plaintiff. You then move to set aside the verdict (also called a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The trial court denies your motion and enters final judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict. You appeal the trial court’s denial of the motion for...

07 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Difference Between Lay Opinion Testimony and Expert Opinion Testimony

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence, Standard of Review

Although I have numerous blog articles regarding the appellate standard of review when it comes to the admissibility of evidence, it is important to remember that “[a] trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion; however, the trial court’s interpretation of the evidence code is reviewed de novo.” L.L. v. The State of Florida, 41 Fla.L.Weekly D854a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). In L.L., a criminal case, a police officer testified that he smelled the strong odor of marijuana from the defendant and that a plastic bag in defendant’s possession contained marijuana. The defendant objected...

27 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Prejudicial Closing Argument Could Result in Mistrial / New Trial

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

Closing argument is a very, very important part of jury trials to sum up the evidence in the context / theme of your case based on the applicable law. It is your last opportunity to talk directly to the jury about the theme of your case. Check out this article for the purpose of closing argument. While lawyers are afforded latitude in presenting closing argument, improper and prejudicial argument could result in an appellate court granting a new trial. The opposing party must, however, timely object to the improper and prejudicial argument in order to properly preserve this objection for...

10 February

0 Comments

Sticky

De Novo Standard of Appellate Review for Construction of Arbitration Provision

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review

Your contract contains an arbitration provision meaning you are required to arbitrate your dispute instead of litigate your dispute (in court). Nonetheless, your opponent files a lawsuit against you and you move to compel the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in your contract. But, the trial court denies your motion to compel arbitration based on its interpretation of the arbitration provision. So, what do you do? You file an interlocutory appeal to appeal this ruling since you want to arbitrate your dispute. The appellate standard of review for the construction (interpretation) of an arbitration provision is de novo....

07 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Statutory Construction Subject to De Novo Standard of Appellate Review

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

Oftentimes, courts are required to engage in statutory construction and this statutory construction becomes a driving issue in the dispute. Statutory construction is the process of a court interpreting law and then applying that law to a set of facts. For example, if your case turns on the interpretation of a particular Florida statute applied to your facts, this would be statutory construction. On appeal, the issue of statutory construction is subject to a de novo standard of appellate review. Taylor Morrison Services, Inc. v. Ecos, 163 So.3d 1286, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). A de novo standard of review means the...

13 November

0 Comments

Sticky

The Certiorari Standard of Review

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

I previously talked about petitions for writs of certiorari and the certiorari standard of review. A recent Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals explained: “Certiorari review is appropriate when an order [from the trial court] departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of proceedings below and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on post-judgment appeal.” Robinson v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co., 40 Fla.L.Weekly D2547b (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). In this matter, a homeowner filed a lawsuit against his homeowner’s insurance carrier. The insurer moved to abate the lawsuit for purposes of compelling the homeowner to allow...

06 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Reviewed Under Abuse of Discretion

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence, Standard of Review

The trial court allowed certain testimony / evidence to be introduced at trial. I objected, but the trial court overruled my objection. That evidence was introduced and I lost the trial. I am considering an appeal based on the trial court's admissibility of this evidence. "Rulings on the admission of evidence are reviewed [on appeal] under the abuse of discretion standard [of review]." Cantore ex rel. Cantore v. West Boca Medical Center, Inc., 2015 WL 5603449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). This discretion, however, is limited by the Florida Rules of Evidence. Johnston v. State, 863 So.2d 271, 278 (Fla. 2003). For...

21 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Know Your Standard of Appellate Review Regarding the Admissibility of Evidence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Uncategorized

The standard of appellate review regarding the trial court’s admissibility of evidence is an abuse of discretion. See Vavrus v. City of Palm Beach Gardens, 927 So.2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Castaneda ex rel. Cardona v. Redlands Christian Migrant Ass’n, Inc., 884 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Naturally, a party needs to preserve this issue by objecting to the admissibility of the evidence. If a trial court sustains an objection and excludes the evidence, the party trying to introduce the evidence should make a proffer / offer of proof. On the other hand, the standard of review for the trial court’s...

25 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Voir Dire and Reasonable Opportunity to Examine Prospective Jurors

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Voir Dire

Voir dire, as mentioned in prior postings, is a very important part of the jury trial process. Voir dire is when the parties have an opportunity to examine and question prospective jurors in the context of their theme and case in order to determine which six jurors (and alternate) should be sworn in on the jury panel. The objective behind voir dire is to ensure that parties have a fair and impartial jury for your case.Williams v. State, 424 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The right of parties (and even the trial court) in civil dispute to engage in...

18 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Application of the Business Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence, Standard of Review

Hearsay (an out-of-court statement offered at trial for the truth of the matter asserted) is inadmissible at trial. But, there are exceptions to this exclusionary hearsay rule to allow such evidence / testimony to be admissible at trial. Previously, I wrote about one exception known as the business records exception contained in Florida Statute s. 90.803. The business records exception is commonly relied on in business disputes in order to admit business records as evidence. What if there is an appeal concerning the admissibility of evidence introduced at trial under an exception to the hearsay rule? Standard of Appellate Review Whether evidence is...