DANIEL P. TOMPKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
SYLVIA JANE TOMPKINS, APPELLEE
DANIEL P. TOMPKINS, APPELLANT,
SYLVIA JANE TOMPKINS, APPELLEE
362 So. 2d 689
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1978)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a denial of modification of child support and alimony. Appellant sought to have the duty to pay temporarily terminated during a period of incarceration. The trial court denied his request and we affirm.
In arguing his appeal, appellant contends that the refusal to terminate his obligation during his incarceration exposes him to contempt sanctions immediately upon his release. We point out that any finding of contempt would have to comport with the requirements of Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla.1976).
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, Acting C. J., and MELVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 498 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 1986)…d circumstances makes his testimony no more admissible. We are cognizant of the general rule which permits the trial court to call a witness as a court witness if his or her expected testimony conflicts with prior statements.1 See Delante v. State, 362 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). See also McCloud v. State, 835 So. 2d 257, 260 (Fla.1976). That general rule, however, has been clarified by this Court’s recent opinion in Brumbley v. State, 453 So. 2d 381 (Fla.1984). In Brumbley, we held that a party may…
-
Parnell v. State, 500 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ny problem with the rulings in this case, because the matter of calling a witness as a court witness is within the discretion of the trial judge when the witness’ expected trial testimony will be inconsistent with prior statements. Delanie v. State, 362 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), McCloud v. State, 335 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1976). The real question involved here is whether Rumsey’s impeachment testimony was admissible and could be used as substantive evidence, and whether Nelson’s impeachment testimony — wh…
-
Mazzara v. State, 437 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…stimony concerning the statement should have been excluded under the rule that a prior inconsistent statement may not be admitted as substantive evidence, but only for impeachment. Smith v. State, 379 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Delame v. State, 362 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978); Perry v. State, 356 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Pitts v. State, 333 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); and Rankin v. State, 143 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1962). Admittedly, Hoffman’s Michigan statement was not admissible under Section 9…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1976)