Rosenstein v. Raticoff

265 So. 2d 387, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6397
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 25, 1972·No. No. 71-922·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

While we agree with each of the abstract legal propositions advanced by appellant, we find that we are unable to apply them in the instant appeal and unable to determine that reversible error has been committed. The reason is that we have not been furnished with the record, or enough of it, whereby we can conclusively and definitively determine the whole factual basis for the trial court decisions. The judgment comes, of course, with a presumption of correctness and it is the duty of appellant to demonstrate error by furnishing the basis upon which the rulings were made in order that we may review same and decide their correctness. Belflower v. Risher, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 702; Warriner v. Doug Tower, Inc,, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 384; Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MAG-ER, JJ., concur.

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

Rosenstein v. Raticoff, 265 So. 2d 387, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6397 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

265 So. 2d 387 (Rosenstein v. Raticoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fernandez-Silva v. Lang
498 So. 2d 454 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Strauser v. State
360 So. 2d 113 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Johnson & Panico, P. A. v. Couch
350 So. 2d 1080 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
State v. Sulikowski
347 So. 2d 751 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Perry v. Perry
298 So. 2d 439 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)