Blum v. Blum

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he court failed to identify which share of the award was for child support and which was intended to be alimony. Thus, we cannot determine whether the temporary child support portion of the award is appropriate in relation to the child support guidelines.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Regalado Lopez v. Regalado
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2018-10-10· cited 10×
• Van Maerssen v. Gerdts
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-03-22· cited 5×
• Nilsen v. Nilsen
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2011-06-08· cited 5×
• Pedroza v. Pedroza
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-03-02· cited 4×
• Greenhouse v. Greenhouse
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-10-12· cited 4×
• DEBRA A. JOOSTE v. MICHAEL W. JOOSTE
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2019-05-08· cited 3×
• Perez v. Perez
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2016-05-06
• Joshua S. Winegar v. Gabrielle D. Winegar
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2026-04-29
• Dmyant Stingh Sangha v. Kelly Diane Riedel
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2026-06-03

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Robbie v. Robbie
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1991-12-18· cited 37×
• Pedraja v. Garcia
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-01-31· cited 29×
• Garcia v. Garcia
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-05-02· cited 24×
• Burkhart v. Burkhart
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1993-06-15· cited 11×