Annotations, Discussions, Cases:
Cases Citing Statute 90.954
Total Results: 21
940 So. 2d 389, 2006 WL 1472909
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 28, 2006 | Docket: 433583
Cited 151 times | Published
...However, there is an exception to this rule. "The original of a writing, recording, or photograph is not required . . . and other evidence of its contents is admissible when . . . [a]ll originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith. " § 90.954, Fla....
9 So. 3d 1258, 29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 633, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3459, 2009 WL 1097261
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2009 | Docket: 2518682
Cited 17 times | Published
...ant as the Court is unable to determine the precise terms and validity of the terms. On appeal, ESI argues that as the written executed agreement was lost, the trial court should have allowed it to establish the contents of the agreement pursuant to section 90.954, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 90.954(1), Florida Statutes (2008), provides, inter alia, that the original of a writing is not required and other evidence of its contents is admissible when "all originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith." Florida law expressly permits the introduction of parol evidence to prove the contents of a contract where the proponent provides a satisfactory explanation that the original contract was lost or destroyed. § 90.954(3), Fla....
...inst the other defendants. See O'Neal v. Bolling, 409 So.2d 1171, 1172 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (noting that while manual reproduction of documents were not duplicates, on remand, trial court could allow party to establish contents of documents under section 90.954); Action Fire Safety Equip., Inc....
624 So. 2d 252, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 488, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1416, 1993 WL 365848
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 16, 1993 | Docket: 475666
Cited 7 times | Published
...s not a prohibited use of secondary evidence under Florida's best evidence rule. Moreover, even if the printout were offered to prove the contents of the notice, secondary evidence is admissible for such purpose if one of the exceptions set forth in section 90.954 is established....
...Thus, for example, the printout would be admissible to prove the contents of the notice if it were established that all originals were lost or destroyed and their unavailability was not the result of bad faith on the part of the proponent of the evidence. § 90.954(1)....
576 So. 2d 1342, 1991 WL 41025
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 1991 | Docket: 1669720
Cited 7 times | Published
...e best evidence rule, sections 90.951 et seq., Florida Statutes (1989). The best evidence rule allows a duplicate to be admitted under section 90.953(3) unless "[i]t is unfair, under the circumstance, to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original." Section 90.954 provides for the admissibility of a duplicate when: (1) All originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith....
...royed after he and the proposed buyer learned of the lis pendens. Saporito was not afforded an opportunity to explain what became of the second contract. In both instances Saporito was not permitted to make a proper showing under sections 90.953 and 90.954 that the originals were not available, and he was clearly prejudiced by his inability to present a case that the originals were unavailable and the duplicates thus admissible....
844 So. 2d 725, 2003 WL 21032043
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 9, 2003 | Docket: 1662230
Cited 4 times | Published
...) as follows: 90.952 Requirement of originals. Except as otherwise provided by statute, an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove the contents of the writing, recording, or photograph. § 90.952, Fla. Stat (2000). Section 90.954 of the Florida Statutes (2000) further explains that: 90.954 Admissibility of other evidence of contents.The original of a writing, recording, or photograph is not required, except as provided in s....
...ritten notice from the adverse party that the contents of such original would be *728 subject to proof at the hearing, and such original is not produced at the hearing. (4) The writing, recording, or photograph is not related to a controlling issue. § 90.954, Fla....
383 So. 2d 969, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16734
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 27, 1980 | Docket: 457412
Cited 4 times | Published
...The Code adopts the better view that once a predicate for secondary evidence is laid, no distinction should be made between forms of secondary evidence. Significantly, the term other evidence, not secondary evidence, is used in the Florida Evidence Code. See § 90.954, Fla....
26 So. 3d 700, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 914, 2010 WL 366590
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 3, 2010 | Docket: 1468415
Cited 4 times | Published
...4th DCA 1992), that term appears nowhere in the statute. Although duplicates are acceptable in most cases, see § 90.953, Fla. Stat. (2008), the admissibility of "other evidence" of the contents of a "writing, recording, or photograph" is governed by section 90.954, titled "Admissibility of other evidence of contents." It provides: The original of a writing, recording, or photograph is not required, except as provided in s....
402 So. 2d 1287
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 1981 | Docket: 1691459
Cited 4 times | Published
...Second, Lowery argues that the photocopy of the photocopy is not the best available secondary evidence. It is true that former Florida law recognized degrees of secondary evidence. Wicker v. Board of Public Instruction, 159 Fla. 430, 31 So.2d 635 (1947). However, section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1979), abolishes the distinction made between degrees of secondary evidence. Law Revision Counsel note section 90.954; Evidence in Florida § 8.11, The Florida Bar (2d ed....
492 So. 2d 802, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1753
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 1986 | Docket: 478436
Cited 4 times | Published
...tape recording itself which was lost by the state. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Appellant maintains that while a written transcript of her tape-recorded confession would be admissible as secondary evidence under the Florida Evidence Code, section 90.954(1), Florida Statutes (1981), if the tape itself (as the best evidence, section 90.952, Florida Statutes (1981)) was lost or destroyed, the transcript in this case was not admissible because its authenticity was never established as required under the code, section 90.901....
838 So. 2d 1257, 2003 WL 1092750
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 2003 | Docket: 461413
Cited 2 times | Published
...The best evidence rule is set forth in section 90.952, Florida Statutes (2002), as follows: Except as otherwise provided by statute, an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove the contents of the writing, recording, or photograph. Section 90.954, Florida Statutes, amplifies the preceding statute by providing that: The original of a writing, recording, or photograph is not required, except as provided in s....
482 So. 2d 450, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 209
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 14, 1986 | Docket: 1769697
Cited 2 times | Published
...The evidence is unavailable for the plaintiffs' use and they have demonstrated an inability to proceed without it. 427 So.2d at 308. Ordinarily where a party in possession loses or destroys crucial record evidence a burden is imposed on that party to prove that the loss or destruction was not in bad faith. See § 90.954, Fla....
...Matkins, [154 Okla. 232] 7 P.2d 414 (Okl. 1932). However, it should be noted that under § 90.704 the basis of an expert's testimony does not have to be admissible. On the present state of the record, the question is answered by the best evidence rule, section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1983), which provides: Admissibility of other evidence of contents....
605 So. 2d 941, 1992 WL 240675
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 1992 | Docket: 1702237
Cited 1 times | Published
...A bill of lading, as the trial court correctly acknowledged, is a contract for transportation of goods. [2] Florida law expressly permits the introduction of parol evidence to prove the contents of a contract, where the proponent provides a satisfactory explanation that the original contract was lost or destroyed. [3] § 90.954(1), Fla....
...Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania sought to recover the $49,000 payment as subrogee of B & G. [2] A bill of lading is a receipt for goods, a contract for their carriage, and is documentary evidence of title to goods. Black's Law Dictionary 168 (6th ed. 1990). [3] Section 90.954 provides, inter alia, that the original of a writing is not required and other evidence of its contents is admissible when "all originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith."
81 So. 3d 504, 2012 WL 283089, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1335
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 2012 | Docket: 2413470
Cited 1 times | Published
...e is properly admitted under section 90.953, it also precludes consideration of secondary evidence. If, and only if, neither an original nor its equivalent is available, secondary evidence regarding the contents of the original can be admitted under section 90.954, which states, in relevant part: "The original of a writing ......
...dence did not preclude consideration of secondary evidence in determining the contents of the original. We note, however, that while Rainess' document was not admissible under section 90.953, it was clearly admissible, and ultimately admitted, under section 90.954 as secondary evidence. See Garcia v. Lopez, 483 So.2d 470, 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) ("Section 90.954 is broader than section 90.953-a copy which is not admissible under section 90.953 as a duplicate may still be admissible under section 90.954."). Having established that the original copy of the IRA Simplifier was lost or misplaced, and that there was no equivalent of the original proffered, the trial court, pursuant to section 90.954, properly admitted the Bank's secondary evidence regarding the contents of Machida's IRA Simplifier....
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 2021 | Docket: 60627036
Published
Prac., Evidence § 952.1 (2021 ed.); see also § 90.954, Fla. Stat. (2021). It “does not require the
166 So. 3d 897, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8474
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 2015 | Docket: 2679284
Published
...prove a premeditated intent to kill, there was more than ample evidence of
such an intent. And while it appears that appellant’s best evidence
objection to testimony relating the contents of a voice message from
appellant may have been properly denied based upon section 90.954(3),
Florida Statutes (2013), even if error, the admission of the testimony was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
We remand, however, to delete the judgment of conviction’s reference
to a “deadly” weapon on the attempted first degree murder charge, as it
appears to be a clerical error....
426 So. 2d 1200, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19030
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 1983 | Docket: 64595137
Published
159 Fla. 430, 31 So.2d 635 (1947). However, section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1979), abolishes the distinction
409 So. 2d 1171, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19283
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 1982 | Docket: 64587978
Published
contents of the notes in the manner provided in Section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1981), which may be by oral
