DANIEL MADISON AND GLYNNIS MITCHELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; CAROL O'DONNELL, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1980-01-04
Nos. 78-2429, 78-2731
MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur., ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.
378 So. 2d 1311 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1980) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Concurrence
ANSTEAD, Judge,

ANSTEAD, Judge,

concurring specially:

I feel compelled to concur in the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s order denying a motion to suppress, on the authority of Gustafson v. State, 243 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Tash v. Oesterle, 380 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
    …aughter’s college education, which payments were in excess of those required under the terms of the final judgment of divorce. Consequently, we find no error in the court’s denial of the motion for payment of arrearages. Accord Stephens v. Stephens, 378 So. 2d 1311 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). The foregoing disposes of the problem of child support arrearages. We must still resolve the more difficult question of prospective child support requested by the mother in her petition for modification. In Jelke v. Jelke, 233 S…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw