HENRY STATON, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCES ROBINSON STATON, 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 the trial court's judgment because substantial evidence supported its findings, and it is not the appellate court's role to substitute its judgment for the trier of fact.
Appellant sought review of an adverse final judgment, and appellee cross-appealed the denial of a receiver. The primary issue on appeal was the suffic…
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 Deference To Trier Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment, and by cross-appeal the appellee challenges that part of the same judgment which denied her motion for appointment of a receiver to manage the property jointly owned by the parties. The principal question preserved on both the appeal and cross-appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.
In our review of the issues presented for decision we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the findings made and conclusions reached by the trial court. It is not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed error or that the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous.1 The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hortensio Delgado and Nellie Geraldine Delgado v. Strong, 360 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1978)…2d 736 (Fla.1955); Schechtman v. Grobbel, supra. However, the presumption of correctness which surrounds a final judgment on review, Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So. 2d 222 (Fla.1962); Williams v. Williams, 85 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1955); Staton v. Staton, 231 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); American Fidelity Fire Insurance Co. v. Clark, 174 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), compels the conclusion that the trial judge in the case sub judice properly applied this principle in determining the propriety of a judgment of f…
-
Thompson v. Jacobs, 314 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…o be applied in a determination of sufficiency of the evidence is whether the record reveals some basis in fact to support the verdict. (Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Garland, Fla.App. 1st 1972, 269 So. 2d 708; Staton v. Staton, Fla.App. 1st 1970, 231 So. 2d 531 and Vanzant v. Davies, supra) In the last above cited case this Court said: “In order to test the validity of this contention, we need only to examine the transcript of the trial proceedings in order to determine whether there was sufficient compe…
-
Ball v. Balint Papp, 317 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
Authorities Cited
- OLD Equity Life Ins. Co. v. Franklyn Levenson, 177 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Stoller v. Jaffe, 125 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)