RICHARD EARL ARMEL AND MARGARET LOUISE ARMEL, AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF CHERYL LEE ARMEL, A MINOR, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
KING SPRAY SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND HAROLD EVANS, APPELLEES
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 appellate court reviewed an order denying parents custody of their dependent child, finding the parents' refusal to undergo psychiatric evaluations, despite the child's successful adjustment in foster care, meant the home environment had not changed and the child should not be returned.
The juvenile court properly denied the parents' request to regain custody of their dependent child, as the parents' refusal to undergo psychiatric evaluations meant there was no evidence of change in their home environment.
A child was adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care. The parents refused to undergo psychiatric evaluations, which the state department of wel…
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.
Affirmed. See and compare: Cone v. Inter County Telephone & Telegraph Co., Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 148; Riddle v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 71; Davis v. Major Oil Company, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So.2d 558; City of Green Cove Springs v. Donaldson, 5th Cir.1965, 348 F.2d 197; 6 Am.Jur.2d, Assault and Battery, § 134.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taft Douglas, Jr. v. State, 216 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…has been a palpable abuse of that discretion to the disadvantage of the accused, or, whereby his rights may have been jeopardized. Raulerson v. State, Fla.1958, 102 So. 2d 281; Kitchen v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 667; Lewis v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 585. From our review of the entire record, we are convinced that the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for continuance was not an abuse of discretion and that it has not been shown that any rights of the defendant were jeopardized or that…
Authorities Cited
- Cone v. Inter Cnty. Tel. Tel. Co., 40 So.2d 148 (Fla. 1949)
- City of Green Cove Springs v. Donaldson, 348 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Riddle v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., 73 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1954)
- Inez Davis v. Major OIL Co., 164 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)