Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Pandula v. Fonseca

1 Citing case

  1. Canales v. Compania de Vapores Realma, S.A.

    564 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 9 times
    In Canales v. Compania De Vapores Realma, S.A., 564 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), the Third District, citing rule 1.330(a)(2), found reversible error in the trial court's refusal to allow plaintiff to publish the deposition testimony of the designated representative of the defendant.

    We disagree: any probative value such evidence might offer is far out weighed by its prejudicial effect. DeSantis v. Acevedo, 528 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see also LaReina Pharmacy, Inc. v. Lopez, 453 So.2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358 (1940). Third, Canales maintains that the trial court erred in striking portions of his requested jury instructions on maintenance and cure. A party is entitled to jury instructions that accurately reflect the party's theory of the case, when evidence supports the theory.