Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Engebretsen v. Engebretsen

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided March 24, 1942Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBrown, C. J.

It is well settled in this State that where the evidence is conflicting and there is substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s findings, such findings will not be set aside unless the chancellor’s conclusions from the evidence are clearly erroneous. This rule is especially applicable, where, as in this case,. the testimony was all taken before the chancellor in person. This Court has always been reluctant to disturb the decree of a chancellor upon the facts, especially where the evidence is conflicting and much depends upon the credibility of the witnesses. We have even gone so far as…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cobb v. CobbSupreme Court of Florida · 1921
  2. Boshier v. MoellerSupreme Court of Florida · 1922

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

Powered by the Exa API