Pollock v. Couffer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pollock v. Couffer

750 So. 2d 659, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13134

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

DocketNos. 99-902, 99-903

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 750 So. 2d 659 (Pollock v. Couffer) 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

Pollock v. Couffer, 750 So. 2d 659, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13134 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal Willie Pollock challenges the final judgments of injunction for protection against repeat violence which were entered by the trial court against him upon separate motions filed by appellees, William Couffer and Larry Humphreys. Mr. Pollock contends that the evidence of record does not support the trial court’s rulings; however, he has failed to provide this court with either a transcript of the proceedings below or a stipulated statement of facts pursuant to rule 9.200(b)(4) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. This failure prevents us from reviewing the validity of Mr. Pollock’s claims. Since no error of law is apparent from our review of the final judgments, we must affirm. See Loughridge v. Carillo, 706 So.2d 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

AFFIRMED.

ANTOON, C.J., HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal Willie Pollock challenges the final judgments of injunction for protection against repeat violence which were entered by the trial court against him upon separate motions filed by appellees, William Couffer and Larry Humphreys. Mr. Pollock contends that the evidence of record does not support the trial court’s rulings; however, he has failed to provide this court with either a transcript of the proceedings below or a stipulated statement of facts pursuant to rule 9.200(b)(4) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. This failure prevents us from reviewing the validity of Mr. Pollock’s claims. Since no error of law is apparent from our review of the final judgments, we must affirm. See Loughridge v. Carillo, 706 So.2d 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

AFFIRMED.

ANTOON, C.J., HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

750 So. 2d 659, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollock-v-couffer-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack