Gonzalez-Barrera v. Majorca Towers Condominium, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gonzalez-Barrera v. Majorca Towers Condominium, Inc.

197 So. 3d 591, 2016 WL 3080530, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8284

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 2016

DocketNos. 3D15-1928, 3D15-1370

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 197 So. 3d 591 (Gonzalez-Barrera v. Majorca Towers Condominium, Inc.) 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

Gonzalez-Barrera v. Majorca Towers Condominium, Inc., 197 So. 3d 591, 2016 WL 3080530, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8284 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (holding that “[without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal”); Colucci v. Kar Kare Auto. Grp., Inc., 918 So.2d 431, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (observing that the Florida Supreme Court has cautioned restraint when appellate courts review an order imposing injunctive relief that rests on factual matters and requires the trial court to exercise its sound discretion: “This is particularly true where the order relies on live testimony or -other evidence that the trial court is singularly well-suited to evaluate.”) (quoting Operation Rescue v. Women’s Health Ctr., 626 So.2d 664, 670 (Fla.1993), modified in part on other grounds sub nom. Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593 (1994)).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (holding that “[without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal”); Colucci v. Kar Kare Auto. Grp., Inc., 918 So.2d 431, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (observing that the Florida Supreme Court has cautioned restraint when appellate courts review an order imposing injunctive relief that rests on factual matters and requires the trial court to exercise its sound discretion: “This is particularly true where the order relies on live testimony or -other evidence that the trial court is singularly well-suited to evaluate.”) (quoting Operation Rescue v. Women’s Health Ctr., 626 So.2d 664, 670 (Fla.1993), modified in part on other grounds sub nom. Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593 (1994)).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 591, 2016 WL 3080530, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-barrera-v-majorca-towers-condominium-inc-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack