¶1Affirmed. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Williamson v. Williamson, 367 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1979); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Marsh v. Marsh, 419 So.2d 629, 630 (Fla.1982); Kozak v. Kozak, 507 So.2d 718, 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Aronovitz v. Aronovitz, 439 So.2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 450 So.2d 485 (Fla.1984); Adler v. Adler, 418 So.2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Bregman v. Bregman, 388 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Fagan v. Fagan, 381 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bullard v. Bullard, 380 So.2d 1090, 1091-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
523 So. 2d 1254
Mintzer v. Mintzer
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided April 26, 1988
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1988-04-26
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1997
1 state decisions
Relies on 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris · 334 So. 2d 13 - Shaw v. Shaw · Florida Bar v. Hawkins
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1988-04-26
View the full empirical analysis of this case →