Skip to main content

Arthur v. Arthur

Citations

  • 54 So. 3d 454
  • 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 38
  • 2010 Fla. LEXIS 41
  • 2010 WL 114532

How courts have described this case

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

  • applying § 61.13001, Fla. Stat. governing relocation statute, trial court not equipped with \crystal ball\ to predict how statutory factors will change; best interests of child must be determined at time of final hearing
  • “[A] best interests determination in petitions for relocation . . . must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.”
  • “[A] best interests determination in petitions for relocation ... must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.”
  • “Because trial courts are unable to predict whether a change in any of the statutory factors will occur, the proper review of a petition for relocation entails a best interests determination at the time of the final hearing, i.e. a ‘present-based’ analysis.”
  • \[A] 'prospective-based' [best interests] analysis is unsound.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.