Fernandez v. Arocha
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Tuttle v. Miami Dolphins, Ltd. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
- Sherrie Clements v. Club Space Management, LLC, d/b/a Club Space (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
- Keller v. Mortgage Corp. of America (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
- Westberry v. General Waterworks Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
- Hillier v. Purdy (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
- Jefferson National Bank v. City of Miami Beach (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
- Yanco v. Royal Trust Bank of Miami, N.A. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
- Bogen v. Florio (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
- Perez v. Gill (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
- Phillips v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
- Hunt Truck Sales & Service, Inc. v. Jody's Leasing Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
- Vining v. Smith (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
- EGIDI INDUS. PARK CORP. v. Wide Open Spaces, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
- Forte v. Tripp & Skrip (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
- Jason-Fortier, Inc. v. Manufacturers Associates of Florida, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
- Ingham v. Price (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
- Watson v. Khachab (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
- Dinkines v. Dinkines (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Jesus FERNANDEZ and Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, Appellants,
v.
Francisco AROCHA, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Talburt, Kubicki & Bradley and L. Kenneth Barnett, Miami, for appellants.
Michael A. Lipsky and Albert L. Wilensky, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from a partial summary judgment on the question of liability entered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.
This litigation evolves from an intersectional automobile accident in which the plaintiff, a passenger in the defendant's car, was injured.
The defendant and his insurance company contend on appeal that summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of material fact prevailed as to whether or not the defendant was negligent and whether his negligence proximately caused the accident.
However, review of the record on appeal does not make possible a proper disposition of this case, based upon the record which the trial court considered.
The record contains only portions of the plaintiff's and the defendant's depositions which the trial judge considered in full. Moreover, the record contains only one interrogatory, number 89, answered by the plaintiff.
Of course, this court presumes that the action taken by the trial court was correct. It is the appellant's burden to present an appellate record which demonstrates otherwise. E.g., Curtiss-Wright *46 Corporation v. King, Fla.App. 1968, 207 So.2d 294; Pierson v. Sharp, Fla.App. 1973, 283 So.2d 880.
The record in this case makes it impossible for this court to conclude that the trial court erred. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.