HUBERT A. ARONSON, APPELLANT,
v.
LAYHA S. ARONSON, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a divorce judgment, upholding the trial court's decision to grant child custody to the wife. The husband appealed, arguing the custody award was an abuse of discretion, but the appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's decision.
No, the appellate court held that the trial judge did not abuse their discretion in granting custody to the wife, as there was sufficient evidence to support the decision.
“On this appeal from a final judgment of divorce the appellant husband urges error in that portion of the judgment which granted custody of two minor children to the appellee wife.”
This quote establishes the core issue on appeal: the husband's challenge to the child custody award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband appealed a final judgment of divorce, specifically challenging the portion that granted custody of the two minor children to the wife. He …
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 Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
On this appeal from a final judgment of divorce the appellant husband urges error in that portion of the judgment which granted custody of two minor children to the appellee wife. Appellant recognizes that this is an area of the law in which the decision of the trial judge comes to the appellate court clothed with a strong presumption of correctness. He urges nevertheless that the weight of the evidence is such that the decision of the trial judge amounted to an abuse of discretion. Our review of the record convinces us that there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of the chancellor and that for us to reverse his finding would amount to a substitution of our judgment for his in a conflicting factual situation. We therefore hold that error has not been demonstrated. See Mehaffey v. Mehaffey, 143 Fla. 157, 196 So. 416 (1940).
Appellant presents one additional point urging error upon the court’s refusal to admit into evidence certain documents. We find that error is not demonstrated.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Williams, 264 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…to account all the circumstances, of which the visibility of the object encountered is an important one but still only one of the circumstances. City of Jacksonville v. Stokes, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 278; McRae v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 214. A customer has a right to assume premises are safe and it is not contributory negligence to fail to look out for danger when there is no reason to apprehend any. Sagesser v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. (5th Cir. 1956), 230 F. 2d 806. Contributory neglig…
-
Concetta REA and Frank Rea v. Leadership Hous., Inc., 312 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…s jury questions precluding summary judgment. 30 Fla.Jur., Summary Judgment, sec. 6; Jones v. Crews, Fla.App. 1967, 204 So. 2d 24; Lora v. Maule Industries, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 743; see also McRae v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 214; Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Garland, Fla.App. 1972, 269 So. 2d 708; Veiga v. South Carolina Insurance Company, Fla.App.1973, 274 So. 2d 10. Specifically, the factual matters contained in the pleadings and depositions reflect the existence of a…
-
Pensacola Rest. Supply Co., Inc. v. Davison, 266 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…n exercised reasonable care for his own safety. These are matters to be decided by a jury under appropriate instructions from the court. Van Horn v. Food Service Equipment, Inc., 177 So. 2d 528 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1965); McRae v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 227 So. 2d 214 (Fla.App. 4th, 1969). This then brings us to the second point on appeal herein, to wit: did the trial judge properly instruct the jury? The instruction given to the jury was as follows: “It is not negligent to have in a store or other building one…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mehaffey v. Theo Mehaffey, 143 Fla. 157 (Fla. 1940)