Kleiman v. Zap

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kleiman v. Zap

297 So. 2d 314, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6818

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 25, 1974

DocketNo. 73-1095

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 297 So. 2d 314 (Kleiman v. Zap) 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

Kleiman v. Zap, 297 So. 2d 314, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6818 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants who are also counter-claimants, Alex Kleiman and Aviva Klei-man, appeal a final judgment based on a jury verdict in an automobile collision personal injury action. Appellants’ principal reliance is upon claimed error in the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial upon the disclosure that the appellee-driver had been dismissed from a traffic charge growing out of the accident. The disclosure of the traffic charge was inadvertently made and is not a subject of an assignment of error.

The failure of the court to declare a mistrial upon the disclosure of the dismissal of the traffic charge is not reversible error on this record because: (1) appellants failed to move for a mistrial and are not excused from failure to make the motion by their belief that the motion would have been fruitless, and (2) the court’s failure to declare a mistrial was harmless error under the facts of this case. Accord, Wallace v. Rashkow, Fla.App.1972, 270 So.2d 743, 745.

We have examined the remaining points presented and find that they do not present reversible error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendants who are also counter-claimants, Alex Kleiman and Aviva Klei-man, appeal a final judgment based on a jury verdict in an automobile collision personal injury action. Appellants’ principal reliance is upon claimed error in the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial upon the disclosure that the appellee-driver had been dismissed from a traffic charge growing out of the accident. The disclosure of the traffic charge was inadvertently made and is not a subject of an assignment of error.

The failure of the court to declare a mistrial upon the disclosure of the dismissal of the traffic charge is not reversible error on this record because: (1) appellants failed to move for a mistrial and are not excused from failure to make the motion by their belief that the motion would have been fruitless, and (2) the court’s failure to declare a mistrial was harmless error under the facts of this case. Accord, Wallace v. Rashkow, Fla.App.1972, 270 So.2d 743, 745.

We have examined the remaining points presented and find that they do not present reversible error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 So. 2d 314, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleiman-v-zap-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack