In re Nelson

Supreme Court of Florida

In re Nelson

94 So. 2d 845, 1957 Fla. LEXIS 3423

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 So. 2d 845 (In re Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Nelson, 94 So. 2d 845, 1957 Fla. LEXIS 3423 (Fla. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

DREW, Justice.

While three points are argued in appellant’s brief, the sole question in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to appoint a curator for Lacy A. Nelson on the petition of his wife.

The order appealed from was entered following a written appearance and answer of the respondent, Lacy A. Nelson, and after testimony had been taken. Whether the court committed error in failing to appoint the curator cannot be determined in the absence of the testimony which was before the trial court. No such testimony appears in the original record filed in this Court nor in the appendix to the .brief. We glean, from the record that such testimony was not reported. It is, therefore, obvious that the appellant has failed to carry his burden in this Court of clearly establishing reversible error.

Affirmed.

TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.

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

DREW, Justice.

While three points are argued in appellant’s brief, the sole question in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to appoint a curator for Lacy A. Nelson on the petition of his wife.

The order appealed from was entered following a written appearance and answer of the respondent, Lacy A. Nelson, and after testimony had been taken. Whether the court committed error in failing to appoint the curator cannot be determined in the absence of the testimony which was before the trial court. No such testimony appears in the original record filed in this Court nor in the appendix to the .brief. We glean, from the record that such testimony was not reported. It is, therefore, obvious that the appellant has failed to carry his burden in this Court of clearly establishing reversible error.

Affirmed.

TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 So. 2d 845, 1957 Fla. LEXIS 3423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nelson-fla-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack