JOAN L. STEVENS, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD A. STEVENS, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
We find no error or abuse of discretion has been demonstrated by the appellant with respect to the trial judge’s rulings which (a) limited evidence at the hearing to the three issues remaining for disposition pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to the division of jointly owned real properties; (b) ordered the wife to pay the husband his share of the net proceeds from the sale of the Varela Street property; and (c) denied the wife alimony and attorneys fees. Quick v. Leatherman, 96 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1957); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). No reversible error having been demonstrated, the final judgment under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Marzano, 418 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…there is evidence that the vessel has recently crossed the border or there is evidence giving rise to an articulable suspicion that the defendants were engaged in illegal activity. State v. Doyle, 409 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Zafra, 408 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Morales v. State, 407 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Having found a lawful justification for the stop, the trial court erred in requiring proof that the vessel was seen in customs waters. Accordingly, the order of suppression is…
-
CHI v. State, 421 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…[*671] and operated by him. We reverse his convictions upon a holding that (1) there was no evidence giving rise to any reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity which justified a stop of the vessel, see State v. Zaira, 408 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); (2) since the vessel was stopped by Customs Officers inside the coastline of the United States and there was no evidence that the vessel had crossed the border into the United States, no boarding was authorized under Title 19 Uni…
-
State v. Silvio P. Zafra, 444 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…Court of the United States PER CURIAM. This cause is before us pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States in Florida v. Zafra, 462 U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 3529, 77 L.Ed.2d 1382 (1983), which vacated our decision in State v. Zafra, 408 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 418 So. 2d 1281 (Fla.1982), and remanded the cause “for further consideration in light of United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S.-[, 103 S.Ct. 2573, 77 L.Ed.2d 22] (1983).” In that decision the Supreme Court he…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Quick v. Leatherman, 96 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1957)