Rosenstein v. Raticoff

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Rosenstein v. Raticoff, 265 So. 2d 387 (1972)
1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6397
Mag, Reed, Walden

Rosenstein v. Raticoff

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

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 MAG-ER, JJ., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
Arnold ROSENSTEIN, d/b/a Chatham Construction Co. v. Jerald RATICOFF and Joan Raticoff, his wife
Cited By
5 cases
Status
Published