Healy v. Foxcraft Philmont Division Gulf & Western Manufacturing Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Healy v. Foxcraft Philmont Division Gulf & Western Manufacturing Co.

429 So. 2d 1368, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22446

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1048

StatusPublished

This text of 429 So. 2d 1368 (Healy v. Foxcraft Philmont Division Gulf & Western Manufacturing Co.) 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

Healy v. Foxcraft Philmont Division Gulf & Western Manufacturing Co., 429 So. 2d 1368, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22446 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment entered pursuant to a jury veirdict upon a holding that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing deposition testimony of a critical witness to be read to the jury, see Colonnades, Inc. v. Vance Baldwin, Inc., 318 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 16 (Fla.1976); Fishman v. Liberty Associates, Inc., 196 So.2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), writ discharged, 205 So.2d 657 (Fla.1968), and (2) the trial court properly permitted the defendants to use videotapes made by the plaintiff’s expert during the course of cross-examination of the expert, see Rayner v. Stauffer Chemical Co., 120 Ariz. 328, 585 P.2d 1240 (1978).

We have examined the other issues presented and find them to be without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment entered pursuant to a jury veirdict upon a holding that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing deposition testimony of a critical witness to be read to the jury, see Colonnades, Inc. v. Vance Baldwin, Inc., 318 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 16 (Fla.1976); Fishman v. Liberty Associates, Inc., 196 So.2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), writ discharged, 205 So.2d 657 (Fla.1968), and (2) the trial court properly permitted the defendants to use videotapes made by the plaintiff’s expert during the course of cross-examination of the expert, see Rayner v. Stauffer Chemical Co., 120 Ariz. 328, 585 P.2d 1240 (1978).

We have examined the other issues presented and find them to be without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 So. 2d 1368, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/healy-v-foxcraft-philmont-division-gulf-western-manufacturing-co-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack