Schwartz v. Schwartz

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that section 61.16, Florida Statutes, “expressly requires the court to make findings regarding each party’s financial needs and ability to pay”
• remanding for purposes of a retrospective award

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Campbell v. Campbell
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2010-11-10· cited 24×
• Dieter Nagl v. Monika Navarro
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2016-03-16· cited 5×
• Ortiz v. Ortiz
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-09-20· cited 5×
• Chaney v. Fife
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2009-09-10· cited 5×
• Henderson v. Henderson
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-02-06· cited 4×
• Sean Patrick Mahoney v. Virginia Colby Mahoney
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2018-07-09· cited 3×
• Ehiabor v. Ehiabor
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2026-06-10

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Canakaris v. Canakaris
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1980-03-27· cited 2,288×
• Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1985-05-02· cited 889×
• Rosen v. Rosen
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1997-04-24· cited 318×
• Wade v. Hirschman
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2005-05-26· cited 94×
• Sumlar v. Sumlar
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-10-14· cited 30×
• Hoffay v. Hoffay
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-01-24· cited 19×
• Hamlin v. Hamlin
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-11-17· cited 16×