Truitt v. Truitt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Truitt v. Truitt

670 So. 2d 1133, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3276, 1996 WL 139519

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 1996

DocketNo. 94-04058

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 670 So. 2d 1133 (Truitt v. Truitt) 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

Truitt v. Truitt, 670 So. 2d 1133, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3276, 1996 WL 139519 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The incarcerated husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution claiming he was denied due process by not being allowed to attend the final hearing. The trial court held the final hearing without ruling upon the husband’s petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. We agree that the husband was denied due process in this matter and reverse. The trial court on remand should rule on the husband’s petition for writ of habeas corpus after considering the factors outlined in Conner v. Conner, 590 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Should the trial court decide not to have the incarcerated husband transported for the final hearing, the trial court may utilize any authorized alternative to the husband’s physical presence which will provide the husband due process. See Little v. Little, 616 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The incarcerated husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution claiming he was denied due process by not being allowed to attend the final hearing. The trial court held the final hearing without ruling upon the husband’s petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. We agree that the husband was denied due process in this matter and reverse. The trial court on remand should rule on the husband’s petition for writ of habeas corpus after considering the factors outlined in Conner v. Conner, 590 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Should the trial court decide not to have the incarcerated husband transported for the final hearing, the trial court may utilize any authorized alternative to the husband’s physical presence which will provide the husband due process. See Little v. Little, 616 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 So. 2d 1133, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3276, 1996 WL 139519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/truitt-v-truitt-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack