¶1Affirmed. Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16-17 (Fla.1976); Caidin v. Caidin, 367 So.2d 248 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Koeppel v. Koeppel, 351 So.2d 766 (Fla.3d.DCA 1977); Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So.2d 371, 375, 378 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Cann v. Cann, 334 So.2d 325, 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Linares v. Linares, 292 So.2d 63 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). See and compare; Meridith v. Meridith, 366 So.2d 425 (Fla.1978); Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So.2d 134 (Fla.1976); Fraser v. Fraser, 368 So.2d 97 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).
371 So. 2d 1068
Adams v. Adams
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided June 5, 1979
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1979-06-05
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1988
4 state decisions
Relies on 334 So. 2d 13 - Shaw v. Shaw · 346 So. 2d 56 - Herzog v. Herzog · Cummings v. Cummings
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1979-06-05
View the full empirical analysis of this case →