"We have made our expectations clear, and our tolerance should not be expected in the future," one judge wrote in a special concurrence.
December 10, 2020 at 02:30 PM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Business Review
A South Florida lawyer has a recurring problem with inflammatory arguments, according to a ruling from the Fourth District Court of Appeal that condemned his “egregiously improper” closing statements during a tobacco trial.
The appellate panel found the comments twice likened Big Tobacco to a “torturous authoritarian regime” instead of sticking to facts and evidence.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers & financiers at THE MULTIFAMILY EVENT OF THE YEAR!
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
Join the Mendocino County District Attorney s Office and work in Mendocino County home to redwoods, vineyards and picturesque coastline. ...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
The ruling stemmed from a tobacco trial, during which a plaintiff’s lawyer referenced Holocaust movie “Schindler’s List.” Photo: ShotShare/iStockphoto.com.
