ZGA AIRCRAFT LEASING, INC., ETC.,
v.
WEBJET LINHAS AEREAS S.A., ETC., ET AL.,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court's judgment in favor of appellees is affirmed because appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error on any of the five independent grounds upon which the trial court ruled.
[1] In appellate review of a trial court judgment, the trial court's decision arrives with a presumption of correctness and the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating re…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”
Establishing the standard of review in appellate proceedings
ZGA Aircraft Leasing appealed from a final order entered after a three-day non-jury trial in Miami-Dade County. The trial court, after hearing testimo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presumption Of Correctness On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. appeals from a final order issued after a non-jury trial in favor of Webjet Linhas Aereas S.A. and Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A. After three days of trial, including arguments from counsel and testimony from four witnesses, the trial court requested and received post-trial briefing from both sides. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order and final judgment totaling 44 pages, ruling in favor of Appellees on five independent grounds.
The trial court’s order comes to us clothed with the presumption of correctness. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.”); Horatio Enterprises, Inc. v. Rabin, 614 So. 2d 555, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (“The rulings of a trial court arrive in appellate courts with the presumption of correctness and appellate courts must interpret the evidence in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court's rulings.”); Hernandez v. Vidal, 354 So. 3d 632, 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“The findings of a trial court come to an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness.”).
To reverse this order, Appellant’s counsel commendably conceded at oral argument that we would need to find reversible error on each of the five independent grounds. We do not. Accordingly, we affirm. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webjet Linhas Aereas S.A. v. ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Horatio Enters., Inc. v. Rabin, 614 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)