445 So. 2d 711 - Marcoux v. Marcoux’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[e]ven though we believe that the husband has been shortchanged, we reluctantly must affirm because of the recent Supreme Court decision in Conner v. Conner, 439 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1983). That case holds that a determination that a party has been "shortchanged" is an issue of fact and not one of law and that a District Court exceeds its scope of appellate review in making such a determination. To the same effect is the more recent case of Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1983), where the Supreme Court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal based on the test of whether the judgment is supported by competent evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 464 So. 2d 542 - Marcoux v. Marcoux

2. “Conner is thus consistent with other cases dealing with the scope of appellate review in dissolution appeals, and it alters Canakaris not in the slightest. In the present case, the district court found the valuation placed on Draughon and Marcoux, Inc. to be”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 464 So. 2d 542 - Marcoux v. Marcoux

3. “DO CONNER V. CONNER, SUPRA , AND KUVIN V. KUVIN, SUPRA , LIMIT THE SCOPE OF APPELLATE REVIEW ENUNCIATED IN CANAKARIS V. CANAKARIS, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 464 So. 2d 542 - Marcoux v. Marcoux