Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. v. Padilla
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
The appellants raise several issues on appeal. The main issue is whether a judge’s communication with the jury in the absence of attorneys, after the jury has retired to deliberate, requires a new trial where the attorney for the losing party had knowledge of the communication but failed to object until after the verdict was returned. We hold that under the circumstances the complaining party’s right to a new trial was waived.
The trial judge in this case made two improper contacts with the jury. The first one was after the jury was charged and counsel for both sides had left the courtroom…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1986
- Hernandez v. CHARLES E. VIRGIN, MD, PADistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
- Miller v. PaceSupreme Court of Florida · 1916
- Walt Disney World Co. v. AlthouseDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
- Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. J. A. Jones Construction Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1969
3Cited by6 opinions
- Sears Roebuck and Co. v. PolchinskiDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
- Hargrove v. CSX Transp., Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
- Hatin v. MitjansDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
- Couch v. Dunn Ave. Shell, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001
- Hampton v. KennardDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.