District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District · 2010 · Family Law
Family Lawaffirmedper curiamFlorida family lawWade v. Hirschmancontrolling authorityappellate disposition
Facts
The opinion identifies Carlos Rivero as the appellant and Raida Rivero as the appellee in a family law case. The court's opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, factual background, or the trial court's specific ruling. The only substantive information provided is that the appellate court affirmed and cited Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So.2d 928 (Fla. 2005). Because the opinion is summary in form, no additional facts are stated.
Issue
Whether the lower court's ruling should be affirmed under the authority of Wade v. Hirschman. The opinion does not state the precise family law issue presented.
Rule
When controlling authority governs the appeal, the appellate court may summarily affirm by citing that authority. In this case, the court applied Wade v. Hirschman as the controlling basis for affirmance.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a family law appeal from Miami, the panel concludes that an earlier Florida Supreme Court decision squarely resolves every issue raised by Elena Soto against Marcus Soto. The judges see no factual distinction that would matter under that precedent.
Which appellate disposition is most consistent with the governing rule reflected in the opinion?
Explanation. The opinion establishes only that when controlling authority governs the appeal, the appellate court may summarily affirm by citing that authority. It need not provide additional reasoning if the cited precedent is dispositive. (Derived from Rivero v. Rivero (n.d.).)