LEON BOWMAN, ET UX.,
v.
J. ARNOLD LIEBMAN, ET UX.
LEON BOWMAN, ET UX.,
J. ARNOLD LIEBMAN, ET UX.
144 Fla. 371
Florida Supreme Court (1940)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 198 So. 20
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
The court has carefully examined the record in this case, and no error clearly appearing, the final decree is—
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holmes v. Holmes, 95 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1957)…) this court is committed to the doctrine that a final decree of divorce cannot be granted on the uncorroborated testimony of one of the parties. Dean v. Dean, 87 Fla. 242, 99 So. 816; Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196, 125 So. 694; Homan v. Homan, 144 Fla. 371, 198 So. 20; Garland v. Garland, 158 Fla. 643, 29 So. 2d 693; Martin v. Martin, Fla., 66 So. 2d 268; Morgan v. Morgan, Fla., 40 So. 2d 778. Aside from the dearth of corroborating evidence to support the decree of divorce, it appears that if the part…
-
Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1948)…s said that throughout most of the proceedings respondent did not appear in the courtroom but remained “in a side room.” Appeals lie to the Florida Supreme Court from final decrees of divorce. Fla. Const. Art. V, § 5. And see e. g., Homan v. Homan, 144 Fla. 371,198 So. 20 (1940). The action was brought pursuant to the provisions of Mass. Gen. Laws (Ter. Ed.) c. 209, § 36. Petitioner testified that for many years prior to her departure for Florida, respondent had made frequent allusions to the fact that p…