Escoto v. Drehobl

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Escoto v. Drehobl

924 So. 2d 68, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2224, 2006 WL 399436

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 2006

DocketNo. 3D04-1520

StatusPublished

This text of 924 So. 2d 68 (Escoto v. Drehobl) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Escoto v. Drehobl, 924 So. 2d 68, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2224, 2006 WL 399436 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Pascual v. Dozier, 771 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981)(trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony based on improper disclosure “should be guided largely by a determination as to whether use of the undisclosed witness will prejudice the objecting party ... Prejudice in this sense refers to the surprise in fact of the objecting party ... .”)(internal citations omitted); Dos Santos v. Carlson, 806 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(reversing and remand[69]*69ing for new trial based on improper exclusion of defendant’s radiology expert, where plaintiff knew about expert prior to trial and failed to establish unfair surprise).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Pascual v. Dozier, 771 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981)(trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony based on improper disclosure “should be guided largely by a determination as to whether use of the undisclosed witness will prejudice the objecting party ... Prejudice in this sense refers to the surprise in fact of the objecting party ... .”)(internal citations omitted); Dos Santos v. Carlson, 806 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(reversing and remand[69]*69ing for new trial based on improper exclusion of defendant’s radiology expert, where plaintiff knew about expert prior to trial and failed to establish unfair surprise).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

924 So. 2d 68, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2224, 2006 WL 399436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escoto-v-drehobl-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack