Legal Opinion

Kratz v. Newsom

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 21, 1971No. 70-652PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MANN, Judge.

We are split 2-2-1. There would ordinarily be no need for a third opinion on the same question, but the prior opinions 1 of this court in two cases like this, in which the trial judge has declined to sever an insurance company from trial, are in conflict. It is then apparent that the result in such a case is that its outcome on appeal depends on the random choice of the panel before which it is heard. My view is that these three cases should be affirmed, but that in the future trial judges should grant severance unless some reason for the insurer’s participation at trial is shown…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Great Northern Railway Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Shingleton v. BusseySupreme Court of Florida · 1969
  3. Beta Eta House Corp., Inc. of Tallahassee v. GregorySupreme Court of Florida · 1970
  4. Florida Forest & Park Service v. Eston StricklandSupreme Court of Florida · 1944
  5. Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. ClontsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1971

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Gilbert v. GilbertDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  2. Kratz v. NewsomSupreme Court of Florida · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API