RICHARD A. ZAUN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 held that the juvenile judge had substantial competent evidence to support his conclusions and did not depart from essential legal requirements.
The juvenile court placed a child's home under court supervision and ordered parents to comply with probation officer directions. This order was appea…
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 Juvenile Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final order of the juvenile court which, inter alia, provides:
“It is therefore, Considered, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as Follows :
“That the home of the said children be and is hereby placed under the supervision of the Court. Further, the parents, guardian or custodian of the children shall admit to said home any probation officer of this Court for the purpose of supervision. Further, the parents, guardian, or custodian shall comply with all reasonable directions of the supervising probation officer concerning the care and welfare of the above named children.”
Such appeals are properly brought to this court, and are governed by the provisions of § 39.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., Art. 5, § 5(3), Fla.Const., 26 F.S.A.; State v. J. K., Fla. App.1958, 104 So.2d 113; In re C.E.S., Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 610; In re Evans, Fla.App.1960, 116 So.2d 783.
The scope of review in such cases is limited to a determination of the question whether or not the juvenile court misinterpreted the legal effect of the evidence as a whole or whether in some fashion he departed from the essential requirements of the law. Noeling v. State, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 593.
Applying this rule to the evidence revealed by the record, we find that the juvenile judge had substantial competent evidence upon which to base his conclusions and that he did not misinterpret the legal effect of the evidence as a whole.
It would serve no useful purpose to- set forth the evidence in detail. On this point the record has been carefully examined and it leads us to the conclusion that the judgment of the juvenile court should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Avery v. Rena M. Heermance, 138 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…a.1953, 66 So. 2d 42. Appeals from orders entered in the juvenile court are properly brought to this court and are governed by the provisions of § 39.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Art. V, Section 5(3), Fla.Const., 26 F.S.A. See Zaun v. State, Fla.App.1961, 135 So. 2d 866; In re C.E.S., Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 610; State v. J. K., Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 113. The appellant contends the juvenile court judge erred in failing to give full faith and credit to the provisions of the Georgia divorce decree granting custo…
-
Zaun v. State, 142 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1962)…Appeal dismissed without opinion. 135 So. 2d 866.…
-
In the Interest of Warren Marshall, 214 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…d 911; and In re Zimmerman’s Estate, Fla.1956, 84 So. 2d 560, and cases there cited. See also 5 Fla.Jur. ‘Certiorari’ Sections 29 and 31.” The above holding in Noeling was in effect followed by the 3rd District Court in Zaun v. State, Fla.App.1962, 135 So. 2d 866. Tested by the aforesaid rule, we hold that the Juvenile Court here had sufficient, competent evidence before it to sustain the allegations of the petition which constituted the basis for the hearing. This being so, the order appealed from is accor…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Noeling v. State, 87 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1956)
- State v. J. K., 104 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- State v. Brock, 106 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- In the Interest of Ida Glendlyn (9) & Glenn Earl (8) Evans, 116 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)