Tully v. Tully

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tully v. Tully

817 So. 2d 1055, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7838, 2002 WL 1224968

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 6, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-2966

StatusPublished

This text of 817 So. 2d 1055 (Tully v. Tully) 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

Tully v. Tully, 817 So. 2d 1055, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7838, 2002 WL 1224968 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Klette v. Klette, 785 So.2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“Appellant’s failure to provide either a transcript or proper substitute, such as a stipulated statement of the facts, defeats the appellate court’s ability to review either the factual or legal basis for the trial court’s decision.”); Mead v. Mead, 726 So.2d 865, 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see generally Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979).

BARFIELD, WEBSTER, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Klette v. Klette, 785 So.2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“Appellant’s failure to provide either a transcript or proper substitute, such as a stipulated statement of the facts, defeats the appellate court’s ability to review either the factual or legal basis for the trial court’s decision.”); Mead v. Mead, 726 So.2d 865, 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see generally Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979).

BARFIELD, WEBSTER, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

817 So. 2d 1055, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7838, 2002 WL 1224968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tully-v-tully-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack