Florida Statute 90.508 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VII
EVIDENCE

Chapter 90
EVIDENCE CODE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 90.508

90.508 Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim privilege.—Evidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged matter is inadmissible against the holder of the privilege if the statement or disclosure was compelled erroneously by the court or made without opportunity to claim the privilege.

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379.

F.S. 90.508 on Google Scholar

F.S. 90.508 on Casetext

Amendments to 90.508

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 90.508

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 90.508.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 90.508

Total Results: 10

S.P., by and through her natural guardian R.P. v. Anthony Vecchio and the State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-10-01

Citation: 162 So. 3d 75, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15249

Snippet: *80 part of any claim or defense. § 90.508(4), Fla. Stat. (2018). None of those exceptions

S & I Investments v. Payless Flea Market, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2009-05-27

Citation: 10 So. 3d 699, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6043, 2009 WL 1456938

Snippet: 209 F.Supp.2d 269 (D.D.C. 2002). Further, section 90.508, Florida Statutes, provides that evidence or disclosure

Mordenti v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2008-02-22

Citation: 982 So. 2d 710, 2008 WL 465588

Snippet: criminal justice system? [5] I recognize that section 90.508, Florida Statutes (2006), renders inadmissible

Holmes Reg. Med. v. Health Care Admin.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-03-23

Citation: 731 So. 2d 51

Snippet: by the time the privilege is asserted. Section 90.508 provides that "[e]vidence of a statement or other

Melody v. State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1998-02-25

Citation: 706 So. 2d 115, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1832

Snippet: privileges asserted here are based in part on section 90.508 of the Florida Evidence Code, which provides in

Myron v. Doctors General Hospital, Ltd.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1997-12-31

Citation: 704 So. 2d 1083, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14498

Snippet: section 90.510 does not alter this result. Section 90.508, Florida Statutes (1993), provides, in pertinent

Myron Ex Rel. Brock v. DOCTORS GENERAL HOSP.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1997-12-31

Citation: 704 So. 2d 1083

Snippet: section 90.510 does not alter this result. Section 90.508, Florida Statutes (1993), provides, in pertinent

Woody v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-06-19

Citation: 581 So. 2d 966, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5721, 1991 WL 110456

Snippet: DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge. Arthur Lee Woody appeals from his convictions for loitering and prowling, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The convictions were entered upon his plea of nolo contendere in which he reserved his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Woody contends that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest him for the crime of loitering and prowling. We agree and, accordingly, reverse. At the hearing on the

Ford v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1990-11-29

Citation: 572 So. 2d 946, 1990 WL 183831

Snippet: Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 90-508. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Trade National Bank

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1989-02-28

Citation: 539 So. 2d 11, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 934

Snippet: 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Sections 90.507 and 90.508, Florida Statutes (1985); Compare Stoudt v. Securities