113 Conn. App. 107 - Wallbeoff v. Wallbeoff’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
April 2017
most recently cited
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Vinson v. Kelly · Norman v. United States · Grimm v. Grimm · Unkelbach v. McNary · Favrow v. Vargas
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The current support ... contribution amounts calculated under [the child support guidelines] ... are presumed to be the correct amounts to be ordered. The presumption regarding each such amount may be rebutted by a specific finding on the record that such amount would be inequitable or inappropriate in a particular case. ... Any such finding shall state the amount that would have been required under such sections and include a factual finding to justify the variance. Only the deviation criteria stated in ... subdivisions (1) to (6), inclusive, of subsection (b) of this section ... shall establish sufficient bases for such findings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“requirement by finding an agreement that deviates from the guidelines to be fair and equitable and that such a finding satisfies the requirement that the court make a specific finding that application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate. In short, the plaintiff asserts that the required specific finding can be implied from the court's other findings. The question we ultimately face, therefore, is whether the court correctly interpreted § 46b-86(a) to require a court, pursuant to the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the court in the present case also deviated from the guidelines, did not calculate the presumptively correct support order pursuant to the guidelines, did not make a specific finding on the record that application of the general rule would be inequitable or inappropriate under these circumstances and did not include a justification for the variance”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.