Brock v. Brock (1997)

green · 34 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 17 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 17

Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

199720112026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Uwan Lloyd Williams v. Shanice Regina Williams (2026)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

See Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So. 2d 166, 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Brock v. Brock, 690 So. 2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

green Cancel v. Cancel (2024)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Id.; Brock v. Brock, 690 So. 2d 737, 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). 3 In the instant case, the record before the circuit court included all the information necessary for calculating the marital portion of Mr. Cancel's retirement benefits and ordering a deferred distribution of Ms. Cancel's share.

green DiNARDO v. DiNARDO (2012)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

“The extent of the parties’ incomes from all sources and the reasonable income-earning abilities of the parties[] are essential parts of the equation ... in determining the parties’ comparable financial circumstances, to justify or deny an attorney’s fee and costs to the spouse with less resources.” Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737, 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

green Barabas v. Barabas (2006)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

green Overbay v. Overbay (2005)

Rule Authority · N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.

See, e.g., Lake v. Lake, 756 A.2d 917, 924 (D.C.2000) (concluding that "a conservative five percent could reasonably *444 be imputed as annual investment income" without requiring "invasion into principal or increased future earnings"); Brock v. Brock, 690 So. 2d 737, 741 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (noting that it is not equitable "to require an investor to reinvest assets in a manner which will result in losses through fees, taxes, cost, and loss of principal due to inflation" …

green Holmes v. Holmes (1998)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Laurie also contends that the trial court erroneously awarded Bruce sixty-six percent of the marital assets, and failed to enter specific findings valuing those assets or justifying the court's unequal distribution. *168 Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

green Woodward v. Woodward (2025)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Brock v. Brock, 690 So. 2d 737, 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

green CARY MARCONI v. TAMER ERTURK (2020)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Brock v. Brock, 690 So. 2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (finding that where there was insufficient evidence to support findings on valuation, remand was appropriate for the court to take additional testimony to determine valuation of assets and liabilities).

finding that where there was insufficient evidence to support findings on valuation, remand was appropriate for the court to take additional testimony to determine valuation of assets and liabilities

green LARRY B. INGRAM v. LINDA S. INGRAM (2019)

Cited (see also) · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see also

"As a general rule, when 'marital property has been equitably distributed and the parties' incomes have been equalized through an alimony award, the trial court abuses its discretion by awarding attorney's fees.' " Hanson v. Hanson, 217 So. 3d 1165, 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 185 So. 3d 528, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)); see also Matajek v. Skowronska, 927 So. 2d 981, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ("[A]n award of attorney's fees is inappropriate if the …

green Serbousek v. Lucas (2016)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Matajek v. Skowronska, 927 So.2d 981, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that “an award of attorney’s fees is inappropriate if the parties- are left in relatively equal financial circumstances after the dissolution” (citing Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737, 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997))).

green Wagner v. Wagner (2011)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Reddell, 899 So.2d at 1155 (citing Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)).

green Matajek v. Skowronska (2006)

Cited (see also) · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see, e.g.

See, e.g., Reddell v. Reddell, 899 So.2d 1154, 1155-56 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (quoting Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)); Nichols v. Nichols, 907 So.2d 620, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

green Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald (2005)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See O'Connor v. O'Connor, 782 So.2d 502, 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citing Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)). *367 Similarly, the definition of "gross income" contained in section 61.30, the child support guidelines provision, is very broad.

green Pietras v. Pietras (2003)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

green Spitulski v. Spitulski (2002)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

green Doyle v. Doyle (2001)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

green Stewart v. Stewart (1997)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Schellhammer v. Schellhammer, 687 So.2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Rausch v. Rausch, 680 So.2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). .