CARL GENE LINDSEY, APPELLANT,
v.
INEZ L. LINDSEY, 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.
This case concerns whether a Florida court can grant comity to an interlocutory divorce decree from California regarding child custody. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the California decree, even if not formally introduced, was part of the record and judicially noticeable.
Yes, the Florida trial court has the authority to grant comity to an interlocutory decree of divorce from California awarding child custody, as the decree was part of the record and judicially noticeable.
“This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Carl Gene Lindsey, from a final order granting defendant Inez L. Lindsey's counterclaim for custody of the couple's minor children and denying his petition for custody.”
Establishes the nature of the appeal and the core dispute over child custody.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Carl Gene Lindsey, appealed a Florida trial court's order that granted the defendant, Inez L. Lindsey's, counterclaim for child custody…
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 Petition For Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Carl Gene Lindsey, from a final order granting defendant Inez L. Lindsey’s counterclaim for custody of the couple’s minor children and denying his petition for custody.
The sole issue raised on appeal is the authority of the trial court to grant comity insofar as it awards custody of the children to an interlocutory decree of divorce entered in the Superior Court of the State of California. Morris v. Kridel, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 130.
*644An authenticated copy of the decree was attached to the answer of the defendant, Inez L. Lindsey. Fla.R.C.P. 1.130(b) 30 F.S.A. Even though the decree was not formally introduced into evidence, it was a part of the record and the court could take judicial notice thereof. Leatherman v. Alta Cliff Co., 1934, 114 Fla. 30S, 153 So. 845.
Accordingly, the decree of the trial court is affirmed.
CROSS, J., and WILLIAMS, 0. EDGAR, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leatherman v. Alta Cliff Co., 114 Fla. 305 (Fla. 1934)
- Hoyt E. Morris and Viola Morris v. Myron M. Kridel, 179 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Boyte v. Stoer, 114 Fla. 395 (Fla. 1934)