MacAr v. MacAr

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the only elements for relief under rule 1.540 applicable to the case were “fraud” and “newly discovered evidence,” and that neither had been established by the wife
• explaining that “the only bases for relief under rule 1.540 that might arguably apply” in a situation where the former husband’s financial affidavit contained mistakes and omissions are fraud or newly-discovered evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Macar v. Macar
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2001-12-06· cited 17×
• Romero v. Romero
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-05-23· cited 1×
• Hopper v. Hopper
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2008-12-31

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Casto v. Casto
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1987-06-30· cited 108×
• Petracca v. Petracca
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-02-18· cited 24×
• Goodstein v. Goodstein
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1995-01-11· cited 5×
• Macar v. Macar
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-11-03· cited 1×