Coryell v. Morris

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coryell v. Morris

730 So. 2d 373, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3849, 1999 WL 162132

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 1999

DocketNo. 98-01156

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 730 So. 2d 373 (Coryell v. Morris) 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

Coryell v. Morris, 730 So. 2d 373, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3849, 1999 WL 162132 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

John Coryell, the father, appeals an order awarding grandparent visitation rights to Sandra and Thomas Morris, his ex-wife’s parents, pursuant to section 752.01(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1997).¹ He argues that section 752.01(1)(a) is unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So.2d 510 (Fla.1998), compels us to reverse. In Von Eijf, the court held that the government may not interfere in a parent’s decision regarding grandparental visitation without a showing of a compelling state interest and that no compelling state interest underlies subsection 752.01(1)(a). 720 So.2d at 516-517. Therefore, the supreme court concluded that this subsection is facially unconstitutional. Id.

Reversed.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.

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

WHATLEY, Judge.

John Coryell, the father, appeals an order awarding grandparent visitation rights to Sandra and Thomas Morris, his ex-wife’s parents, pursuant to section 752.01(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1997).¹ He argues that section 752.01(1)(a) is unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So.2d 510 (Fla.1998), compels us to reverse. In Von Eijf, the court held that the government may not interfere in a parent’s decision regarding grandparental visitation without a showing of a compelling state interest and that no compelling state interest underlies subsection 752.01(1)(a). 720 So.2d at 516-517. Therefore, the supreme court concluded that this subsection is facially unconstitutional. Id.

Reversed.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

730 So. 2d 373, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3849, 1999 WL 162132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coryell-v-morris-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack