Markey v. State
Citations
- 47 Fla. 38
Syllabus
<p>1. Where a document is offered in its entirety and is admitted in evidence, without objection, a motion to strike out said document as an entirety upon' the ground that a portion thereof is incompetent and inadmissible upon certain specified grounds, should be overruled, when any part of said document is admissible as against the specific grounds urged.</p> <p>2. Where a record was offered in evidence by the State and at the time of said offer it was stated that certain portions of said record were not included therein and were not offered, and the defendant, being thus put upon notice as to the excluded parts, consented to the introduction of said record, no error was committed by the trial court in denying a motion of the defendant to strike out said record on the ground that the whole record was not filed in evidence, especially where it is not made to appear that the defendant was in any manner harmed by the omission of the excluded parts.</p> <p>3. Where upon motion of the complainant’s solicitors in a divorce suit the court orders and appoints a certain designated person to take the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses in said divorce suit but fails to designate said person as an examiner, master in chancery or by any official title, the order ,is sufficient to confer full authority upon the designated person to take said testimony and such authority carries with it the power and authority as well as the duty to administer oaths to the complainant and other witnesses. (Hocker, J., dissenting.)</p> <p>4. Where the complainant in a divorce suit procures an order from the court appointing a certain designated person to take the testimony of himself and other witnesses in said suit, but said order fails to designate said person an examiner or master in chancery or to give to him any official title, and the complainant proceeds to have his testimony taken in said divorce suit by the person so appointed by the court, at complainant’s request, and uses
Judges: Hocker, Shackleford
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-06-15· cited 175×
- Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of San FranciscoNinth Circuit· 2010-10-22· cited 83×
- Gordon v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1958-07-25· cited 83×
- Pittman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-01-15· cited 58×
- North v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1952-10-21· cited 51×
- Youngker v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1968-10-25· cited 40×
- Dickens v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1905-06-15· cited 32×
- Hoodless v. JerniganSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-01-15· cited 28×
- Bennett v. District Court of Tulsa Co.Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1945-10-11· cited 26×
- Settles v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1918-02-21· cited 24×
- The People v. RogersIllinois Supreme Court· 1932-04-23· cited 20×
- State ex rel. Railroad Commission v. Great Northern Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1912-04-15· cited 18×
- Wilds v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1920-04-24· cited 14×
- Collins v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1985-02-22· cited 13×
- Freeman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1905-06-15· cited 13×
- Jarvis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-03-13· cited 6×
- Crockett v. CasselsSupreme Court of Florida· 1928-05-01· cited 6×
- Nix v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1965-04-01· cited 5×
- State v. JohnstonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1989-12-13· cited 4×
- Adams v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-01-22· cited 3×
Cites
30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Hoodless v. JerniganSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 82×
- Buckstaff v. RussellSupreme Court· 1894-02-05· cited 66×
- Dean v. EmersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1869-10-15· cited 52×
- Cook v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 49×
- Fields v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 34×
- Anthony v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1902-01-15· cited 33×
- Higginbotham v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-06-15· cited 32×
- State v. MadiganSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1894-06-11· cited 31×
- State ex rel. Robert v. MurphySupreme Court of Florida· 1893-06-15· cited 29×
- State v. O'BrienTennessee Supreme Court· 1894-11-10· cited 28×
- Richard v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-06-15· cited 26×
- Maynard v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1890-11-26· cited 24×
- Howard v. SextonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors· 1845-07-15· cited 23×
- People v. McCaffreyMichigan Supreme Court· 1889-06-07· cited 20×
- State ex rel. Ross v. CallSupreme Court of Florida· 1897-06-15· cited 19×
- Potier & McCoy v. BarclaySupreme Court of Alabama· 1849-01-15· cited 19×
- Craft v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-06-15· cited 17×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Kansas· 1900-05-05· cited 16×
- Mann v. JenningsSupreme Court of Florida· 1889-06-15· cited 11×
- Johns v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 11×
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.