Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 92.38 (2025)
Comparison of disputed writings.
✓ 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
92.38 Comparison of disputed writings.—Comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine, shall be permitted to be made by the witnesses; and such writings, and the evidence of witnesses respecting the same, may be submitted to the jury, or to the court in case of a trial by the court, as evidence of the genuineness, or otherwise, of the writing in dispute.
History.—s. 55, ch. 1096, 1861; RS 1121; GS 1539; RGS 2739; CGL 4411.
Note.—Former s. 90.20.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1968–2014 · leading case: Proctor v. State, 97 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
Proctor v. State, 97 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). “) (explaining that section 92.38, Florida Statutes, which allows jury comparison of disputed writing with genuine exemplar, has been construed to permit jury comparison only where expert or skilled witness has testified that disputed writing and exemplars were written by same…”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rutledge, 148 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “See § 92.38, Fla. Stat. (2013) (permitting a witness to compare “a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine” (emphasis added)).”
Pate v. Mellen, 275 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). “We agree with the statement of the trial court that under F.S. § 92.38, F.S.A., "it is the province and responsibility of the court to determine the genuineness of the standard offer and the court must be satisfied that it is genuine before admitting it to be used as a standard.”
Windle v. Sebold, 241 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). “On the basis of these proven standards and pursuant to Section 92.38, F.S. 1967, F.S.A., a Mr. Robert Lynch, whom the court permitted to testify as an expert examiner of questioned documents, testified that the signatures of the plaintiffs on the satisfaction of mortgage were…”
Barbon v. State, 207 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). “), reading as follows: “Comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine, shall be permitted to be made by the witnesses; and such writings, and the evidence of witnesses respecting the same, may be submitted to the jury, or…”
Sanchez v. Mondy, 936 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “At common law it was not possible to prove that a signature or writing was genuine by comparing it with any other signature or writing; however in the interest of promoting the administration of justice in cases where comparisons of disputed writings were properly made, the…”
Florida Keys Boys Club, Inc. v. Pelekis, 327 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). “280, and Fla.Stat. § 92.38. Upon return of this cause to the trial court, an order requiring the production o.”
Graham v. State, 505 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). “See section 92.38, Florida Statutes (1985). ANSTEAD, LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ.”
Simmons v. State, 248 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). “*230 The basis for our conclusion begins with Section 92.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which has been restricted by case law in its application and provides: 92.”
Aldridge v. State, 220 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). “The record reveals that the comparison testimony was received in compliance with the requirements of § 92.38 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. See Barron v. State, Fla.”
Pate v. Mellen, 237 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). “…Trust Co. v. Calafonas (Fla.1953) 68 So.2d 562, 563, 564 . . Davidson v. Bell (Ark.1969) 447 S.W.2d 338, 340 . . F.S. § 92.38, F.S.A.”
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.