Coogler v. Rhodes
Citations
- 38 Fla. 240
Syllabus
<p>1. A leading question lias been defined as one which may be answered “yes” or “no.” This is not the most usual definition, or the one most exactly fixing the meaning of the term. The proper signification of the expression is a suggestive question, one which suggests or puts tiie desired answer into the mouth of the witness.</p> <p>2. A question addressed to a witness in examination is not necessarily leading- because it can be answered “yes” or “no.” A leading question is one that points out the desired answer, and not merely one that calls for a simple affirmative or negative.</p> <p>3. An interrogatory which merely asks a witness if he has any knowledge as to a fact which is in issue between the parties, and directs him if he has such.knowledge to state the extent of the same is not objectionable upon the ground of being a leading question.</p> <p>4. The great primary object in the examination of witnesses is to make .known the truth of the matters in controversy. Great nicety upon the subject of leading questions is not conducive to this object, or to convenience in examination, or to the administration of justice.</p> <p>5. In an action of libel, evidence tending to show good ground for suspicion of the truth of the matter alleged to be false is material for the defendant under a plea.of not guilty, not to prove the truth of the charge, but as tending to show a less degree of malice, and in mitigation of the damages to which plaintiff is entitled. Such evidence is also material under a plea of privileged communication as a circumstance to be considered by the jury as to whether the alleged libelous language was published through the express malice of the defendant.</p> <p>6. In actions of libel, those publications which are considered privileged are divided into two classes: absolutely privileged, and conditionally or qualifiedly privileged.</p> <p>7. A definition of a qualifiedly privileged communication, especially applicable to the facts of the present cas
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating the admissible evidence “under the plea of privileged communication”, is “to be considered by the jury as to whether the alleged libelous language was published through the express malice of the defendant.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Liddon
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
52 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Nodar v. GalbreathSupreme Court of Florida· 1984-12-13· cited 116×
- Myers v. HodgesSupreme Court of Florida· 1907-01-15· cited 91×
- Abraham v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-06-15· cited 83×
- McNayr v. KellySupreme Court of Florida· 1966-03-23· cited 79×
- From v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1981-05-28· cited 74×
- McCurdy v. CollisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1987-06-11· cited 65×
- Hauser v. UrchisinSupreme Court of Florida· 1970-01-28· cited 56×
- Loeb v. GeronemusSupreme Court of Florida· 1953-06-23· cited 52×
- Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. AneSupreme Court of Florida· 1984-09-13· cited 49×
- Axelrod v. CalifanoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1978-04-14· cited 43×
- Pledger v. Burnup & Sims, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1983-04-20· cited 38×
- Gibson v. MaloneySupreme Court of Florida· 1970-01-28· cited 38×
- Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. AneDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1982-10-12· cited 36×
- Abram v. OdhamSupreme Court of Florida· 1956-07-11· cited 35×
- O'NEAL v. Tribune CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1965-06-07· cited 34×
- Schreidell v. ShoterDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1986-12-02· cited 33×
- Leonard, Et Vir v. WilsonSupreme Court of Florida· 1942-05-08· cited 31×
- Demby v. EnglishDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1995-10-27· cited 30×
- Briggs v. BrownSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 29×
- Rosenberg v. MasonSupreme Court of Virginia· 1931-09-17· cited 29×
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- People v. MatherNew York Supreme Court· 1830-05-15· cited 218×
- Montgomery v. KnoxSupreme Court of Florida· 1887-06-15· cited 51×
- Jones, Varnum & Co. v. Townsend's AdministratrixSupreme Court of Florida· 1885-01-15· cited 36×
- Jones v. GreeleySupreme Court of Florida· 1889-06-15· cited 30×
- Wieman v. MabeeMichigan Supreme Court· 1881-01-28· cited 23×
- Harvey v. OsbornIndiana Supreme Court· 1877-05-15· cited 22×
- Commonwealth v. WardwellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1883-12-04· cited 10×
- McKeown v. HarveyMichigan Supreme Court· 1879-01-21· cited 8×
- Hart v. TownsendNew York Supreme Court· 1884-02-15· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.