Klutse v. Rose, 577 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Klutse v. Rose, 577 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Saint-Fort v. State (fladistctapp, 2017-06-21) · Strongest negative: J.P. v. State (fladistctapp, 2013-06-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" J.P. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: but see · confidence high
See e.g., id. (finding that a bicycle which was thrown at a victim but did not strike her was not a deadly weapon, stating “the manner in which the bicycle was used did not make it likely to cause death or great bodily harm”); E.J. v. State, 554 So.2d 578, 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (concluding that a skateboard thrown at a vehicle and denting it was not a deadly weapon); Forchion v. State, 214 So.2d 751, 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (finding that a two foot long piece of a broom handle thrown from twelve to fifteen feet away and inflicting only minor harm was not a deadly weapon); Rogan v. State, 2…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Saint-Fort v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare J.P. v. State, 128 So.3d 61, 61-62 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (finding that quarter-sized rocks the child was “merely flick[ing]” at the victim did not constitute deadly weapons (alteration in original)), with A.H. v. State, 577 So.2d 699, 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (finding a rock was a deadly weapon where it was the size of a baseball and was thrown at the victim but “hit[ ] a nearby wall with a loud ‘boom’ five to ten feet from where the [victim] was standing”).
Cynthia KLUTSE
v.
Harold ROSE, etc.
No. 90-1912.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Apr 9, 1991.
577 So. 2d 699
Teresa M. Pooler, Miami, for appellant., Adorno & Zeder and Raoul G. Cantero, III, and Gloria L. Johnson, Coconut Grove, Carmen Dominguez Frick, Miami, for ap-pellees.
Baskin, Cope, Gersten.
Published
PER CURIAM.

Based on the evidence presented, the trial court had ample basis on whiclj to conclude that the best interests of the children required denial of visitation at this time. See Adams v. Adams, 376 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert, denied, 388 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1980). The order under review is affirmed.