Antepenko v. Antepenko

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that even a thirty-eight percent decrease in need is a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification
• noting that a thirty- eight percent change in circumstances met the substantial change in circumstances test
• noting that a thirty-eight percent change in circumstances met the substantial change in circumstances test
• noting that a thirty-eight percent change in circumstances met the substantial change in circumstances test
• \[T]he thirty- 6 eight percent decrease shown here clearly meets the 'substantial change in circumstances' test.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Eisemann v. Eisemann
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2009-03-06· cited 11×
• Wolfe v. Wolfe
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-03-28· cited 8×
• Wilson v. Wilson
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2010-04-21· cited 7×
• Driggers v. Driggers
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2013-11-27· cited 6×
• Regan v. Regan
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-04-12· cited 4×
• Talbert John Wood v. Margaret Blunck
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2014-11-23· cited 3×
• Morrison v. Morrison
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2011-02-11· cited 2×
• SUSAN LEE MALOWNEY v. JOHN RAPHAEL MALOWNEY
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2018-06-20
• JOHN-CHARLES ALLAIRE v. BARBARA SILVA ALLAIRE
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2023-09-15

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Pimm v. Pimm
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1992-05-28· cited 121×
• Bedell v. Bedell
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1991-05-30· cited 39×
• Rahn v. Rahn
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-05-17· cited 20×