Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 90.706 (2025)
Authoritativeness of literature for use in cross-examination.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
90.706 Authoritativeness of literature for use in cross-examination.—Statements of facts or opinions on a subject of science, art, or specialized knowledge contained in a published treatise, periodical, book, dissertation, pamphlet, or other writing may be used in cross-examination of an expert witness if the expert witness recognizes the author or the treatise, periodical, book, dissertation, pamphlet, or other writing to be authoritative, or, notwithstanding nonrecognition by the expert witness, if the trial court finds the author or the treatise, periodical, book, dissertation, pamphlet, or other writing to be authoritative and relevant to the subject matter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: Linn v. Fossum, 946 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2006).
Linn v. Fossum, 946 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2006). “See § 90.706, Fla. Stat. [2] Section 90.704, which was modeled after Federal Rule of Evidence 703, [3] significantly *1037 expanded the facts or data on which experts could rely in forming their opinions on an issue for trial.”
Donshik v. Sherman, 861 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). “See § 90.706, Fla. Stat. (1987). This objection was overruled.”
Oken v. Williams, 23 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). “See Green ; § 90.706, Fla. Stat. (2007). Yet, the majority opinion denies Respondent's right to an evidentiary hearing here, but Weeks does not justify that denial.”
Liberatore v. Kaufman, 835 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “Kaufman followed the ACOG bulletin, he did not deviate from the standard of care: This is certainly not the only way to manage a problem, there may be other ways which are equally, equally appropriate, but certainly no one can claim that if someone did it according to one of…”
Philip Morris USA Inc., & R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Rose Pollari, Etc, 228 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “Florida’s rule prohibiting the bolstering of expert opinions with authoritative publications derives from section 90.706, Florida Statutes (2015), which allows the use of a publication on cross-examination of an expert witness if the expert, recognizes it as authoritative.”
Flanagan v. State, 586 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). “1989), the party seeking admission of the scientific technique at the trial stage is precluded by Section 90.706, Florida Statutes, from offering statements from learned treatises as substantive evidence, although such writings may be used during cross-examination of the expert…”
Phillip Morris, Inc. v. Janoff, 901 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). “During trial, prior to the defense experts testifying, the plaintiff moved in li-mine, pursuant to section 90.706, Florida Statutes (2002), to preclude the defense from bolstering their expert witnesses by asking them whether there was anything in the medical literature that…”
Tallahassee Mem'l, Etc. v. Mitchell, 407 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “…has not contested the Fund's right to actively participate in the trial. [2] § 90.704, Fla. Stat. (1979). [3] § 90.706, Fla. Stat. (1979).”
Chesterton v. Fisher, 655 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). “Gerrit Schepers, pursuant to Section 90.706, Florida Statutes (1993). [1] These articles and treatises contained opinions that were contrary to Dr.”
State of Florida Dep't of Corr. v. Andrew Junod, 217 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). “Pianko improperly bolstered his opinion. Experts are prohibited from bolstering their opinions by reference to the opinions of non-testifying experts or opinions expressed in treatises authored by others.”
Benjamin v. Tandem Healthcare, Inc., 93 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “The Estate responded that section 90.706, Florida Statutes (2009) 3 , was dispositive and precluded use of the advisory as substantive evidence.”
Doctors Co. v. Plummer, 210 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). “Torres testified that she gave the Leva-quin to treat sinusitis rather than an ear infection, her experts were deprived of the opportunity to fully respond to the claim that Levaquin samples should not have been provided to Decedent. 1 The trial court’s error was compounded by…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.