Nalley v. Nalley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nalley v. Nalley

411 So. 2d 275, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19452

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 1982

DocketNo. WW-322

StatusPublished

This text of 411 So. 2d 275 (Nalley v. Nalley) 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

Nalley v. Nalley, 411 So. 2d 275, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19452 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinions

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

This matter has been considered on appel-lee’s motion for clarification. This court’s opinion of December 8, 1981, 406 So.2d 1240 (Fla.App.), is clarified as follows. The final judgment as it relates to dissolution of marriage, child custody, distribution of home furnishings, attorney’s fee, and restraining the parties from molesting, harming, har-anging, assaulting and harassing the other is affirmed. These matters were not raised as error by appellant. As indicated in a prior opinion herein, the final judgment is reversed inasmuch as it grants relief not specifically pleaded. Other than as indicated above, all requests for rehearing and clarification are denied.

McCORD and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents with written opinion.

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

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

This matter has been considered on appel-lee’s motion for clarification. This court’s opinion of December 8, 1981, 406 So.2d 1240 (Fla.App.), is clarified as follows. The final judgment as it relates to dissolution of marriage, child custody, distribution of home furnishings, attorney’s fee, and restraining the parties from molesting, harming, har-anging, assaulting and harassing the other is affirmed. These matters were not raised as error by appellant. As indicated in a prior opinion herein, the final judgment is reversed inasmuch as it grants relief not specifically pleaded. Other than as indicated above, all requests for rehearing and clarification are denied.

McCORD and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents with written opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 So. 2d 275, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nalley-v-nalley-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack