Diaz v. Hernandez
360 So. 2d 58, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 22420
Opinion
The only substantial question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court properly applied the test set forth in Marshall v. Papineau, 132 So.2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961); and Reeder v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 338 So.2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), in excluding the testimony of an expert witness. Our review of the record shows no error.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Diaz v. Hernandez, 360 So. 2d 58, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 22420 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).
360 So. 2d 58 (Diaz v. Hernandez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Reeder v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc.
338 So. 2d 271 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Marshall v. Papineau
132 So. 2d 786 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1961)