abuse privilege in Florida

2016Id.

2014Appellant’s reliance on Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla.2000), is misplaced, as the prosecutor in Brooks personally attacked defense counsel, whereas in the present case the prosecutor merely suggested that appellant fabricated the abuse defense.

1984The Caldwell court found that the Layne holding showed that Florida has aligned itself with the minority, but, referring to Layne , "making plain the narrowness of the way and the straitness [sic] of the path when truth, though unwittingly, is forsaken, the court declares that wantonness, recklessness, or carelessness in making such publication would be an abuse of the privilege." Id. (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).

1975Fouts v. Margules, 98 So.2d 394 (Fla.App.3d, 1957).

1972The abuse of the rule by any individual has a serious and deleterious effect on the work of the judicial branch of government at all levels of activity and cannot help but ultimately prejudice the rights of all other individuals who become involved with the state’s criminal procedures.” Bumgarner v. State, 245 So.2d 635 (4 Fla. App.1971).

1961Jenkins et al. v. State, 35 Fla. 737 , 18 So. 182 ; Gaines v. State, 97 Fla. 908 , 122 So. 525 .

1961Jenkins et al. v. State, 35 Fla. 737 , 18 So. 182 ; Gaines v. State, 97 Fla. 908 , 122 So. 525 .

1961Jenkins et al. v. State, 35 Fla. 737 , 18 So. 182 ; Gaines v. State, 97 Fla. 908 , 122 So. 525 .

1960Co., 85 Fla. 378 , 96 So. 95 ; and when the nature of the case warrants it under the law, and the facts are properly and sufficiently presented, appropriate judicial relief by injunction may be granted as provided by law and the principles of equity, without adjudicating the corporate franchise rights of a defendant corporation.

1960Co., 85 Fla. 378 , 96 So. 95 ; and when the nature of the case warrants it under the law, and the facts are properly and sufficiently presented, appropriate judicial relief by injunction may be granted as provided by law and the principles of equity, without adjudicating the corporate franchise rights of a defendant corporation.

1959Joseph Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Southeastern Telephone Co., 1941, 149 Fla. 14 , 5 So.2d 55, 57 , wherein one of the questions is as follows: “Does a public service corporation, with a franchise to do business in a certain locality, but not an exclusive franchise, have the right to question by injunction the extent of corporate power of another public service corporation, with a franchise to do the same kind of business, solely for the purpose of keeping down competition?” Our Supreme Court declared the law in Florida to be as follows: “Under the law and practice in Florida, the State may i

1959Joseph Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Southeastern Telephone Co., 1941, 149 Fla. 14 , 5 So.2d 55, 57 , wherein one of the questions is as follows: “Does a public service corporation, with a franchise to do business in a certain locality, but not an exclusive franchise, have the right to question by injunction the extent of corporate power of another public service corporation, with a franchise to do the same kind of business, solely for the purpose of keeping down competition?” Our Supreme Court declared the law in Florida to be as follows: “Under the law and practice in Florida, the State may i

1956Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 519 , 98 So. 603 .

1956Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 519 , 98 So. 603 .

1884Underwood, 77 N. C., 502 , the court say: “¥e have in some cases ordered a new trial ■on account of the abuse of privilege by counsel, and will always do. so when it seems probable that the defendant lhas been prejudiced'on his trial by such abuse.” In Jenkins vs.