Spears v. Enfinger

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Spears v. Enfinger

554 So. 2d 25, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7428, 1989 WL 153625

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 22, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2808

StatusPublished

This text of 554 So. 2d 25 (Spears v. Enfinger) 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

Spears v. Enfinger, 554 So. 2d 25, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7428, 1989 WL 153625 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Wastle and Lillian Spears, have failed to show the way of necessity approved by the trial court was unreasonable, impracticable or substantially inadequate. Even though we, sitting as fact-finders, may have arrived at a different result, we cannot say that the trial court’s exercise of authority was a reversible abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we herewith affirm the trial court’s finding.

SMITH, THOMPSON and MINER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Wastle and Lillian Spears, have failed to show the way of necessity approved by the trial court was unreasonable, impracticable or substantially inadequate. Even though we, sitting as fact-finders, may have arrived at a different result, we cannot say that the trial court’s exercise of authority was a reversible abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we herewith affirm the trial court’s finding.

SMITH, THOMPSON and MINER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 So. 2d 25, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7428, 1989 WL 153625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spears-v-enfinger-fladistctapp-1989.