Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1869–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Loftin v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2002Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185, 192 (Fla. 1953) (quoting Pearcy v. Mich. Mut. 1968In Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185 (Fla.1953) where a juror concealed a matter on voir dire the court quoted with approval the following language from Pearcy v. Michigan, etc., Co., 1887, 111 Ind. 59 , 12 N.E. 98, 99 , 60 Am.Rep. 673 : “ * * * The examination of a juror on his voir dire has a two fold purpose, namely, to ascertain whether a cause for challenge exists, and to ascertain whether it is wise and expedient to exercise the right of peremptory challenge given to parties by the law. ****** “It is the duty of a juror to make full and truthful answers to such questions as are asked him, n | 2 | 4 |
Pearcy v. Michigan Mutual Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2025Co., 12 N.E. 98, 99 (Ind. 1887)) (“The examination of a juror on his voir dire has a twofold purpose, namely, to ascertain whether a cause for challenge exists, and to ascertain whether it is wise and expedient to exercise the right of peremptory challenge given to parties by the law.”); Van Sickle v. Zimmer, 807 So. 2d 182, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“A litigant is entitled to view the panel as a whole in order to intelligently and effectively use his or her peremptory challenges.”). 1968In Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185 (Fla.1953) where a juror concealed a matter on voir dire the court quoted with approval the following language from Pearcy v. Michigan, etc., Co., 1887, 111 Ind. 59 , 12 N.E. 98, 99 , 60 Am.Rep. 673 : “ * * * The examination of a juror on his voir dire has a two fold purpose, namely, to ascertain whether a cause for challenge exists, and to ascertain whether it is wise and expedient to exercise the right of peremptory challenge given to parties by the law. ****** “It is the duty of a juror to make full and truthful answers to such questions as are asked him, n | 1 | 3 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen2 sentences2025“The right of peremptory challenge implies the right to make an intelligent judgment as to whether a juror should be excused.” Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 819, 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). 1987Counsel have the right to truthful information in making that judgment. [Citations omitted.] ... [R]elief will be afforded where (1) the question propounded is straightforward and not reasonable [sic] susceptible to misinterpretation; (2) the juror gives an untruthful answer; (3) the inquiry concerns material and relevant matter to which counsel may reasonably be expected to give substantial weight in the exercise of his peremptory challenges; (4) there were peremptory challenges remaining which counsel would have exercised at the time the question was asked; and (5) counsel represents that he | 1 | 2 |
Shewbridge v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Co., 12 N.E. 98, 99 (Ind. 1887)) (“The examination of a juror on his voir dire has a twofold purpose, namely, to ascertain whether a cause for challenge exists, and to ascertain whether it is wise and expedient to exercise the right of peremptory challenge given to parties by the law.”); Van Sickle v. Zimmer, 807 So. 2d 182, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“A litigant is entitled to view the panel as a whole in order to intelligently and effectively use his or her peremptory challenges.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Melbourne v. State
green
2 sentences1933The right of peremptory challenge is a right to reject, not a right to select. 1 Thompson on Trials (2 Ed.) Sec. 43; Melbourne v. State, 51 Fla. 69 , 40 Sou. 1910The right of peremptory challenge is a right to reject and not a right to selectThis was approved and followed in Melbourne v. State, 51 Fla., 69 , 40 South. | 2 | 1910–1933 |
Jones v. Imperial Garages, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1953A juror who falsely misrepresents his interest or situation, or conceals a material fact relevant to the controversy, is guilty of misconduct, and such misconduct, is prejudicial to the party, for it impairs his right to challenge." Also, see Jones v. Imperial Garages, 1944, 174 Or. 49 , 145 P.2d 469 ; Texas Emp. 1953A juror who falsely misrepresents his interest or situation, or conceals a material fact relevant to the controversy, is guilty of misconduct, and such misconduct, is prejudicial to the party, for it impairs his right to challenge." Also, see Jones v. Imperial Garages, 1944, 174 Or. 49 , 145 P.2d 469 ; Texas Emp. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Ammons v. State
green
2 sentences1933Rep. 189 ; Ammons v. State, 65 Fla. 166 , 61 Sou. 1933Rep. 189 ; Ammons v. State, 65 Fla. 166 , 61 Sou. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Walsingham v. State
green
1 sentence1913The right of peremptory challenge is a right to reject, and not a right to select In the same case it was held that: “The law does not require that the defendant in a criminal case should be personally present in court when an order is made for a special venire from which to complete or to select a jury for the trial of his case, when the names to constitute such special venire are drawn from the jury-box, when the venire is issued therefor, when such special venire is re turned by the Sheriff, or when the names constituting such venire are called to ascertain whether or not they have been sum | 1 | 1913–1913 |
O'Connor v. State
green
1 sentence1869Because upon challenges for cause shown, if the reasons assigned prove insufficient to set aside the juror, perhaps the bare questioning his indifference may provoke a re-* sentment, to prevent all ill consequences from which the prisoner is' still at liberty, if he pleases, peremptorily to set him aside.” It has been held by the Supreme Court of this State, 9 Fla., 215 , that the right of peremptory challenge may be exercised at any time before a juror is sworn in accordance, with the rule in Virginia in the case of Herrick vs. | 1 | 1869–1869 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.