Copeland v. Copeland

How courts have described this case

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

• holding: “The language of 61.30(3) was intended to permit only those items listed in the statute as deductions from gross income.”
• \The language of section 61.30(3) was intended to permit only those items listed in the statute as deductions from gross income.\
• “The language of 61.30(3) was intended to permit only those items listed in the statute as deductions from gross income.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Geoghegan v. Geoghegan
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-11-16· cited 13×
• Henderson v. Henderson
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-03-18· cited 12×
• Knight v. Knight
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1997-11-19· cited 10×
• Camus v. Prokosch
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-08-19· cited 1×
• Department of Revenue v. Cody
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2014-02-07· cited 1×
• Karimah Hector v. Department of Revenue
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2025-11-05

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Hutslar v. Lappin
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1995-03-17· cited 7×