From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosenstein v. Raticoff

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 25, 1972
265 So. 2d 387 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Opinion

No. 71-922.

July 25, 1972. Rehearing Denied August 25, 1972.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Broward County, Stewart F. LaMotte, Jr., J.

J.I. Watson, Hollywood, for appellant.

James A. Dixon, Jr., and Dixon, Dixon, Lane Mitchell, Miami, for appellees.


While we agree with each of the abstract legal propositions advanced by appellant, we find that we are unable to apply them in the instant appeal and unable to determine that reversible error has been committed. The reason is that we have not been furnished with the record, or enough of it, whereby we can conclusively and definitively determine the whole factual basis for the trial court decisions. The judgment comes, of course, with a presumption of correctness and it is the duty of appellant to demonstrate error by furnishing the basis upon which the rulings were made in order that we may review same and decide their correctness. Belflower v. Risher, Fla.App. 1969, 227 So.2d 702; Warriner v. Doug Tower, Inc., Fla.App. 1965, 180 So.2d 384; Brown v. Householder, Fla.App. 1961, 134 So.2d 801.

Affirmed.

REED, C.J., and WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rosenstein v. Raticoff

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 25, 1972
265 So. 2d 387 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)
Case details for

Rosenstein v. Raticoff

Case Details

Full title:ARNOLD ROSENSTEIN, D/B/A CHATHAM CONSTRUCTION CO., APPELLANT, v. JERALD…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Aug 25, 1972

Citations

265 So. 2d 387 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Citing Cases

Strauser v. State

Of course, all judgments come to us presumed correct and it is petitioner's burden to demonstrate otherwise.…

State v. Sulikowski

AFFIRMED. See Howell v. State, 337 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Pierson v. Sharp, 283 So.2d 880 (Fla. 4th…