Chimerakis v. Evans

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 13, 1968

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1968-08-13

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1969

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a final judgment entered for defendant pursuant to a jury verdict of not guilty in a suit charging defendant with negligence in the operation of her automobile causing injuries to the plaintiffs. “Plaintiffs seek reversal on the ground that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the Metropolitan Dade County Traffic Code, in excluding evidence of defendant’s plea of guilty to the violation, and in denying plaintiffs the right to cross examine the defendant concerning her plea of guilty. “We have carefully considered appellants’ contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel and have concluded that the errors complained of were not so prejudicial as to result in a miscarriage of justice. Powell v. Wilson Lumber Co. of Florida, 115 Fla. 13 , 155 So. 116 ; Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 120 (Emphasis added). “Accordingly the judgment appealed is affirmed. “Affirmed.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 221 So. 2d 735 - Chimerakis v. Evans

Relies on 104 So. 2d 120 - Arsenault v. Thomas · Powell, Et Vir. v. Wilson Lumber Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1968-08-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a final judgment entered for defendant pursuant to a jury verdict of not guilty in a suit charging defendant with negligence in the operation of her automobile causing injuries to the plaintiffs.

¶2Plaintiffs seek reversal on the ground that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the Metropolitan Dade County Traffic Code, in excluding evidence of defendant’s plea of guilty to' the violation, and in denying plaintiffs the right to cross examine the defendant concerning her plea of guilty.

¶3 *447We have carefully considered appellants’ contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel and have concluded that the errors complained of were not so prejudicial as to result in a miscarriage of justice. Powell v. Wilson Lumber Co. of Florida, 115 Fla. 13, 155 So. 116; Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, Fla. App.1958, 104 So.2d 120.

¶4Accordingly the judgment appealed is affirmed.

¶5Affirmed.