DONALD G. LEWELLEN, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Schreiber v. Schreiber, 217 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1968)
  …tley, Fla.App.2d 1961, 134 So. 2d 281. Although the award in Brackin (a token amount of $600.00, payable in installments) was characterized as “go-away” money and did not appear to be alimony in any true sense, see Brackin v. Brackin, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 816, 818, the decision cannot be interpreted as inapplicable to lump-sum alimony, as here contended on behalf of the husband. We held in Brackin that Rule 3.8(b) is permissive rather than mandatory; and thus the Rule is, as it must be, equally applicabl…
• Foust v. Dina Darlene Nipper Knorr Foust, 561 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
  …d 1184 (1976); Fishman v. Fishman, 245 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The burden of showing error rests on the appellant, because decisions of the lower court reach the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Brackin v. Brackin, 190 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 230 (Fla.1967); Strate; Fishman. Here, no reversible error has been demonstrated. Accordingly, the final judgment and order appealed are affirmed. Affirmed. SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.…
• Doane v. Doane, 330 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
  …McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur. . See, e. g., Dulle v. Dulle, Ma.App.3d 1976, 325 So. 2d 441; Reinhart v. Reinhart, Fla.App.1st 1974, 291 So. 2d 103; Pollak v. Pollak, Fla.App.3d 1967, 196 So. 2d 771; Brackin v. Brackin, Fla.App.1st 1966, 190 So. 2d 816.…

Authorities Cited

• Eldred L. Tuggle and Catherine Tuggle v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 185 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
• Damsel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 186 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)