Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wright v. Wright

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 1, 1990No. Nos. 89-35, 89-614Published

1DissentW. Sharp, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The primary error here is the majority opinion’s failure to give the trial court due credence in its fact-finding function, and the majority’s reweighing of evidence presented to the trial court. Both are forbidden to appellate courts by appellate law. See Marsh v. Marsh, 419 So.2d 629 (Fla.1982); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Bradley v. Bradley, 347 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Finally, I seriously question the wisdom and validity of the majority’s reliance on the successor trial judge analogy. It may frequently occur that the trial judge who hears a…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Canakaris v. CanakarisSupreme Court of Florida · 1980
  2. Shaw v. ShawSupreme Court of Florida · 1976
  3. Cann v. CannDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1976
  4. Marsh v. MarshSupreme Court of Florida · 1982
  5. Lee v. LeeDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API