Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number No. 81-807. Attorney(S) Mason Meyerson William John Mason, Miami, for Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum Zavertnik Paul A. Louis Paul E. Gifford, Miami, for Judges PER CURIAM. See more information ... Smart Summary Summary of Opinion: Carlos O. Rojas v. Eysa Rojas, No. 81-807 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 16, 1982) Factual and Procedural Background This opinion concerns an appeal by Carlos O. Rojas from a decision of the Circuit Court, Dade County, presided over by Judge Dick C.P. Lantz. The District Court of Appeal (Third District), in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision. The published opinion contains no factual narrative about the underlying dispute. Legal Issues Presented The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues. Arguments of the Parties The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments. Table of Precedents Cited Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) Not specified in the opinion. Cited by the court in affirming the lower court's decision. Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So.2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) Not specified in the opinion. Cited by the court in affirming the lower court's decision. Walton v. Walton, 354 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) Not specified in the opinion. Cited by the court in affirming the lower court's decision. Court's Reasoning and Analysis The opinion is a brief per curiam disposition stating "Affirmed" and listing three precedents. No further factual findings or detailed legal analysis are provided in the text. Holding and Implications Affirmed. Direct effect: The judgment of the Circuit Court, Dade County, is affirmed as to the parties. The opinion contains no extended discussion of broader legal implications or the reasoning underlying the cited precedents. Show full summary ... CARLOS O. ROJAS, APPELLANT, v. EYSA ROJAS, APPELLEE. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980); Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So.2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Walton v. Walton, 354 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).