Rosenstein v. Raticoff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosenstein v. Raticoff

265 So. 2d 387, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6397

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 25, 1972

DocketNo. 71-922

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 265 So. 2d 387 (Rosenstein v. Raticoff) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 So. 2d 387, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenstein-v-raticoff-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack