Our Lawyers
Over 60 years experience helping people with settlements, lawsuits, administrative hearings, civil litigation, and trials.
This ruling by Judge Grincewicz is frequently requested by fellow attorneys who expect to encounter testimony from "expert witnesses," This ruling resulted from a day long hearing.
The Court ruled that the Frye precedent excludes the testimony of a "biodynamics expert" as junk science. 11 pages. It is provided in 2 formats to make it easier to access.
Some of our favorite esoteric cases for ease of sharing with other lawyers:
London v. Atlantic, 689 So.2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA (1997)
Defendant ran a stop sign and violated Plaintiff’s right of way. Defendant actually got a new jury instruction that the plaintiff had to maintain “a sharp and attentive lookout” (to expect defendant to run the stop sign).
This novel instruction was given even though the committee comment for Fla. Standard Jury Inst. (civil) 4.13 specifically said that no instruction should be given on “Duty to keep lookout.”
The jury found no liability. The appellate court reversed.
Erwin v. Todd, 699 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
Dr. Urbach was used to bring in chiropractic cutoff examination after motion in limine granted to exclude it.
Medical journal used to bolster Dr. Urbach’s on direct examine. By the hearsay laws, F.S. 90.706, you can only use a book to attack testimony on cross examination of the other side’s witness.
First City v. Hallmark, 545 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) Party objecting to discovery over motion to compel as “overly broad or burdensome” must give a showing of fact. “… would they be required to produce a railroad box full of documents, or … a half-inch thick file folder”?