green
Positive treatment
7.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1933 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1933
1979
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Luiza Mara Reis Dos Santos Fernandes De Oliveira v. Natalia Palagi Fernandes De Oliveira
Dicey, Conflict of Laws 111 (2d ed. 1908)).4 In this vein, the “mere intention to acquire [a] new domicile without 4 See also Minick v. Minick, 149 So. 483, 487 (Fla. 1933) (“That place is properly the domicile of a person in which he has voluntarily fixed his abode, not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with a present intention of making it his permanent home.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. Gross
In Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469 , 149 So. 483, 488 (1933), the court explained: "`Residence' is of a more temporary character than `domicile.' `Residence' simply indicates the place of abode, whether permanent or temporary; `domicile' denotes a fixed, permanent residence, to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning. `Residence' has a more limited, precise and local application than `domicile,' which is used more in reference to personal rights, duties, and obligations.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Campbell
The Supreme Court of Florida distinguished the terms ‘residence’ and ‘domicile’ in Minick v. Minick, 149 So. 483, 488-89 (Fla.1933) (“Perhaps the interpretation of no words used in legal phraseology has given the courts of this country more labor and difficulty, and has resulted in a greater variety of judicial opinion, than the interpretation of the words ‘domicile’ and ‘residence.’ ”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Kirby
Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469 , 149 So. 483, 488 (1933)(domicile in Florida “denotes a fixed, permanent residence, to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning.”); In re Dixson, 153 B.R. 594 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1993)(person must be domiciled in Florida for the greater part of 180 days immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition to claim Florida exemptions).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re DeFelice
A person is domiciled in Florida if “he has voluntarily fixed his abode, not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with a present intention of making it his permanent home.” Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469 , 149 So. 483, 487 (1933) (quoting 19 Corpus Juris 392).
cited
Cited "see"
Cassidy v. Cassidy
See Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469 , 149 So. 483 ; Avery v. Heermance, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 775 ; State ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Mendoza
(2×)
Compare Fla. Stat. § 222.17 (1) and Minick v. Minick , 111 Fla. 469 , 149 So. 483 , 487-88 (1933) with 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 522.06 (16th ed. 2018).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Maldonado v. Allstate Ins. Co.
(2×)
As a result, one may be a resident of one jurisdiction although having a domicile in another." Robinson v. Fix, 113 Fla. 151 , 151 So. 512, 513 (1933) (quoting Warren v. Warren, 73 Fla. 764 , 75 So. 35, 42 (1917)); see also Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469 , 149 So. 483, 488 (1933).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Parker v. Parker
Compare Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469 , 149 So. 483 .” The Supreme Court of North Carolina relied on Lopez v. Avery and quoted extensively from it in Thomas v. Thomas, 248 N.C. 269 , 103 S.E.2d 371 [1958], In 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, § 987, the following appears: “It is true that one state cannot directly modify the provisions of a divorce decree of a sister state relating to child support.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thomas Ex Rel. Thomas v. Thomas
Compare Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469 , 149 So. 483 . * * * “The law of Missouri is that the terms and conditions of a decree for child support rendered in that State are subject to revision in that jurisdiction upon proof of a change in circumstances of the parties.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
McDonald v. McDonald Holding Corp.
See also Flowers v. Schenck, 110 Fla. 256 , 148 South.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Peter Tomasello, Jr., as Receiver of the Cocoa Bank & Trust Company, Et Al., Appellants,
v.
Amy Nisbet, a Widow, Et Al., Appellees
v.
Amy Nisbet, a Widow, Et Al., Appellees
John D. Shepard, for Apellants;
James J. Jackson, for Appellees.
Davis, Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford.
Published
Per Curiam.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, BrowN and Buford, J. J., concur.