Ter Keurst v. Miami Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “May a trial court require the parties to exercise all of their peremptory challenges simultaneously in writing where the original panel has been thoroughly examined and challenges for cause exercised, and there remain sufficient members to comprise a jury after all peremptory challenges have been exhausted?”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 486 So. 2d 547 - Ter Keurst v. Miami Elevator Co. · 478 So. 2d 104 - Oliver v. Ghisiawan

2. “Appellants maintain that the court should have ordered a system which would permit the parties to take turns in exercising peremptory challenges. They would then have avoided wasting their peremptory challenges on individuals already excused by opposing counsel. Their claim has merit. In my view, the procedure utilized by the trial court denied appellants the opportunity guaranteed by law to reach an intelligent decision as to the exercise of peremptory challenges. Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1953); Minnis v. Jackson, 330 So.2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Once the litigants have used their challenges on individuals already excused by an opponent, they lack further recourse, especially when, as here, the trial court announces that failure to exercise peremptories at the stated time constitutes a waiver of peremptories. It is impractical to require them to violate the court's ruling in order to obtain the information they need. My disagreement with the majority is based on two reasons. First, waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. Gilman v. Butzloff, 155 Fla. 888 , 22 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1945); Hochman v. Lazarus Homes Corp., 324 So.2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). In this case, however, the court required counsel to exercise their peremptories in total ignorance of the action taken by opposing counsel. Under these circumstances, no waiver could lawfully occur. My second reason stems from the language of the rule pertaining to examination of prospective jurors by”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 486 So. 2d 547 - Ter Keurst v. Miami Elevator Co.