ANDREW J. JONES
v.
FIRST BORN CHURCH COMMUNITY OUTREACH, INC.
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 trial court's judgment in favor of the religious institution was not an abuse of discretion and is affirmed.
[1] On appeal from a nonjury trial, a trial court's determinations regarding witness credibility and the weight of evidence are not subject to reversal absent a clear abuse o…
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“questions relating to evidentiary weight and credibility of witnesses are reserved to the trial court”
The court cited Brown v. State for the principle that trial courts' determinations on witness credibility and evidentiary weight are entitled to deference on appeal
Andrew J. Jones appealed a final judgment rendered after a nonjury trial in a dispute over control of a religious institution, First Born Church Commu…
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 Evidentiary Weight cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this dispute over the control of a religious institution, appellant, Andrew J. Jones, challenges a final judgment rendered in favor of appellee, First Born Church Community Outreach, Inc.,1 following a nonjury trial. Recognizing the trial court’s superior vantage point and constrained by the relatively undeveloped record, we find no abuse of discretion in the determination rendered below and write only to commend the trial judge on his measured and thoughtful order. See Brown v. State, 959 So. 2d 146, 150 (Fla. 2007) (“[Q]uestions relating to evidentiary weight and credibility of witnesses are reserved to the trial court.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Franqui v. State, 59 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 2011)…hat a defendant is not mentally retarded for competent, substantial evidence, and we “do not ‘reweigh the evidence or second guess the circuit court’s findings as to the credibility of the witnesses.’” Nixon, 2 So. 3d at 141 (quoting Brown v. State, 959 So. 2d 146, 149 (Fla. [*92] 2007)). The circuit court has discretion to accept or reject expert testimony. Jones v. State, 966 So. 2d 319, 327 (Fla.2007) (citing Evans v. State, 800 So. 2d 182, 188 (Fla.2001)). “Trial judges have broad discretion in considerin…
-
Hodges v. State, 55 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 2010)…mpetent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings. We do not ‘reweigh the evidence or second-guess the circuit court’s findings as to the credibility of witnesses.’ ” Nixon, 2 So. 3d at 141 (citation omitted) (quoting Brown v. State, 959 So. 2d 146, 149 (Fla.2007)). “[T]he concern on appeal must be whether, after all conflicts in the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the verdict on appeal, there is substantial, competent evidence to support the [de…
-
Nixon v. State, 2 So. 3d 137 (Fla. 2009)…pports the trial court’s findings. See Cherry, 959 So. 2d at 712 (citing Johnston v. State, 960 So. 2d 757 (Fla.2006)). We do not “reweigh the evidence or second-guess the circuit court’s findings as to the credibility of witnesses.” Brown v. State, 959 So. 2d 146, 149 (Fla.2007) (citing Trotter v. State, 932 So. 2d 1045, 1049 (Fla.2006)). However, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. See Sochor v. State, 883 So. 2d 766, 771-72 (Fla.2004). [*142] Cherry Decision Nixon first argues that this…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence