Dade County Board of Public Instruction v. Foster

307 So. 2d 502, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14636
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 4, 1975
DocketNo. 74-700
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 307 So. 2d 502 (Dade County Board of Public Instruction v. Foster) 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
Dade County Board of Public Instruction v. Foster, 307 So. 2d 502, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14636 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the final judgment appealed herein, the trial judge concluded that the appellee was an omnibus insured under an insurance policy issued to the Dade County Board of Public Instruction. Said judgment recites that this determination was made after “evidence having been taken in the cause”.

The policy was ambiguous. The trial judge indicated he received evidence, yet no such evidence was presented in the record on appeal. We therefore affirm.

It is incumbent for the appellant, under Florida Appellate Rules, to bring the record to the court sufficient to demonstrate error. See: Rules 3.6, subds. b, d(l), F.A.R.; Phillips v. Blum, Fla.App.1963, 139 So.2d 459. It has many times been held that where a trial court makes a determination of fact this issue may not be reviewed when the evidence is not presented in the record on appeal. See: Phillips v. Blum, supra; Stuco Corp. v. Gates, Fla.App.1967, 145 So.2d 527; Belflower v. Risher, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 702; Pierson v. Sharp, Fla.App.1973, 283 So.2d 880. There was some contention at oral argument that this introductory paragraph to [503]*503the final judgment was inaccurate. If this was so, the time to correct it was prior to the case being submitted on the merits. Florida Appellate Rules specifically provide the proper proceeding for doing this. See: Rule 3.6 subd. I, F.A.R.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Zarate v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
81 So. 3d 556 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Hazuri v. State
23 So. 3d 857 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. v. Barroso Auto Sales, Inc.
602 So. 2d 985 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Ahmed v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
516 So. 2d 40 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Horowitz v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc.
431 So. 2d 729 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
In re Guardianship of Coolidge
368 So. 2d 426 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Okun v. Stuart House Condominium Ass'n
362 So. 2d 713 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Molne v. Keyes Co.
357 So. 2d 262 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Howell v. State
337 So. 2d 823 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
DADE CTY. BD. OF PUB. INSTR v. Foster
307 So. 2d 502 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
307 So. 2d 502, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dade-county-board-of-public-instruction-v-foster-fladistctapp-1975.