DANIEL STIGELBAUR, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET E. STIGELBAUR, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the final decree, finding no error in the chancellor's conclusions.
A separate maintenance suit was filed alleging habitual indulgence in violent temper and extreme cruelty. The chancellor entered a final decree granti…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Indulgence In Violent And Ungovernable Temper cases and more on FLexlaw
Final decree was entered by the chancellor granting the appellee the sum of $25.00 a week as support money in a separate maintenance suit unconnected with grounds for divorce, alleging that the appellant was guilty of habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper and extreme cruelty. See section 65.09, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
The appellant presents only two propositions, one, that the court erred in entering the final order because it was contrary to law and two, because it was contrary to the evidence. The chancellor heard the testimony of the respective parties to the suit and the witnesses, there being several witnesses for the appellee but no witness for the appellant other than the appellant himself. No error is made to appear in the conclusion reached by the chancellor.
Appellee has filed motion for allowance of attorneys’ fee for the services of her attorneys on this appeal. The motion is granted and an allowance of $200.00 is made.
The decree of the chancellor is affirmed.
KANNER, C. J., and ALLEN and SHANNON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Odom v. The Deltona Corp., 341 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1976)…to fresh water lakes, because of Section 271.06 which specifically stated: ‘nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply to lakes, except tide water lakes.’ Such is not the statutory posture now. Also, the case of Adams v. Crews, 2 DCA 1958, 105 So. 2d 584 is deemed to have been superseded and overruled by the Lobean case above mentioned. Adams v. Crews held that there was no estoppel against the state from asserting invalidity of a tax title and from asserting rights of the people in submerged lands.…
-
Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Fla. v. Lobean, 127 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1961)…. The conflict must result from an application of law to facts which are in essence on all fours, without any issue as to the quantum and character of proof. Petitioners contend that the facts in the case at bar and in Adams v. Crews, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 584, District Court of Appeal, Second District, fall within the criteria set out in the preceding paragraph and are sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this court. It is shown that Adams and LoBean both received Murphy Act deeds to submerged lands;…
-
Belvedere Dev. Corp. v. Dep't of Transp., 476 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1985)…, we said this subsection of the statute “was appropriately included in the chapter on taxation, and it was apparently intended by the legislature to provide a guide for the benefit of tax assessors.” This was quoted with approval in Adams v. Crews, 105 So. 2d 584 (Fla.1958). [*653] No case has ever held section 197.228 applicable as property law to riparian rights. Thus, we agree with the district court of appeal and hold that section 197.-228 is a tax law and therefore not applicable to this case. See Malon…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence