Rudd v. Redfern
789 So. 2d 416, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8071, 2001 WL 649690
Opinions
We affirm the trial court’s orders which properly resolve preliminary disputes in what promises to be an acrimonious and lengthy dissolution and custody battle. In affirming we do not overlook the appellant’s contentions relating to denial of due process. Assuming the appellant’s due process rights were violated, these were temporary intrusions which were corrected by a subsequently noticed hearing, or waived by the appellant’s acquiescence.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rudd v. Redfern, 789 So. 2d 416, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8071, 2001 WL 649690 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).
789 So. 2d 416 (Rudd v. Redfern) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Arena Parking, Inc. v. Lon Worth Crow Ins. Agency
768 So. 2d 1107 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Lentz v. Lentz
414 So. 2d 292 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Mayflower Investment Co. v. Brill
188 So. 205 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)