BUDDY BURKE AND LOTTIE MAE MANUEL
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
BUDDY BURKE AND LOTTIE MAE MANUEL
STATE OF FLORIDA
156 Fla. 770
Florida Supreme Court (1945)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 23 So. 2d 529
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
We have considered all questions argued on this appeal and find no reversible error of law; neither can we say the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgments, so they are affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirby v. Kirby, 111 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…never has been, and never should be the law. See Chesnut v. Chesnut, 160 Fla. 83, 33 So. 2d 730; Kube v. Kube, 159 Fla. 895, 32 So. 2d 921; Brunner v. Brunner, 159 Fla. 762, 32 So. 2d 736; Knox v. Knox, 159 Fla. 123, 31 So. 2d 159; Borden v. Borden, 156 Fla. 770, 23 So. 2d 529; Randolph v. Randolph, 146 Fla. 491, 1 So. 2d 480. My view does not do violence to the well-established rule that a final decree denying the wife’s prayer for alimony, from which no appeal is taken, cannot be reopened for the purpose…
-
Gertrude E. Krieger v. Krieger, 344 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…but that of adultery of the wife to grant alimony to the wife. In a concurring opinion by Chief Justice Brown, it was stated that the effect of the court’s opinion was to overrule its prior holding in Phinney v. Phinney, supra. In Borden v. Borden, 156 Fla. 770, 23 So. 2d 529 (1945), a decree of divorce was granted to the wife on the ground of habitual intemperance of the husband. Despite her needs and the husband’s ability to pay, she was denied alimony by the trial court for the apparent reason that she…