Andersen v. Estate of Andersen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Andersen v. Estate of Andersen

372 So. 2d 485, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17305

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 1978

DocketNo. JJ-147

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 372 So. 2d 485 (Andersen v. Estate of Andersen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andersen v. Estate of Andersen, 372 So. 2d 485, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17305 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It matters not that we, were we sitting as triers of the facts, would have arrived at a conclusion different from that of the learned trial court. The record of this case reveals competent evidence favorable to the appellee which the trial court apparently believed. We are bound, thereby. The ap-pellee cites, and the appellant seeks to distinguish, Weeks v. Weeks, 143 Fla. 686, 197 So. 393 (1940). We do not find it necessary to rely upon that opinion, agreeing that it is distinguishable. We find, however, that we have no alternative, under the evidence revealed by the record on appeal, but to lend to the findings and conclusions of the trial court a presumption of correctness. The final judgment here appealed is therefore

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

It matters not that we, were we sitting as triers of the facts, would have arrived at a conclusion different from that of the learned trial court. The record of this case reveals competent evidence favorable to the appellee which the trial court apparently believed. We are bound, thereby. The ap-pellee cites, and the appellant seeks to distinguish, Weeks v. Weeks, 143 Fla. 686, 197 So. 393 (1940). We do not find it necessary to rely upon that opinion, agreeing that it is distinguishable. We find, however, that we have no alternative, under the evidence revealed by the record on appeal, but to lend to the findings and conclusions of the trial court a presumption of correctness. The final judgment here appealed is therefore

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 So. 2d 485, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andersen-v-estate-of-andersen-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack