DARIO HERNANDEZ
v.
CLAUDIA CARDENAS
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.
A fact-finder is not required to believe the testimony of any witness, even if unrebutted.
[1] A fact-finder is not required to believe the testimony of any witness, even if that testimony is unrebutted.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The finder of fact is not required to believe the testimony of any witness, even if unrebutted.”
Court's statement of applicable law regarding the fact-finder's discretion in evaluating witness testimony.
Dario Hernandez appealed a trial court decision, contending that the court erroneously rejected his evidence which he characterized as uncontradicted.…
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 Witness Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
DARIO HERNANDEZ,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-418
CLAUDIA CARDENAS,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 13, 2019
Nonfinal Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Diana Michelle Tennis, Judge.
Christopher M. Sprysenski, of The Florida Family Firm, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.
Jessica D. Thomas, of Thomas Law Firm, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Dario Hernandez contends the trial court erroneously rejected his “uncontradicted” evidence. We do not accept the view that Hernandez’s evidence was uncontradicted. Nevertheless, “[t]he finder of fact is not required to believe the testimony of any witness, even if unrebutted.” City of Orlando Police Dep’t v. Rose, 974 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 5th
2 DCA 2008) (citing Dep’t of High. Saf. & Motor Veh. v. Dean, 662 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); State v. Paul, 638 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER and SASSO, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Paul, 638 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- AAA Bail Bondsman Serv. v. State, 974 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)