118 N.C. App. 356 - Taylor v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably In Re the Marriage of Brand (2002), 153 N.C. App. 40 - Miller v. Miller (2002)
29 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Coble v. Coble · Clark v. Clark · Plott v. Plott · Tidwell v. Booker · 74 N.C. App. 12 - Little v. Little
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'must be based upon the interplay of the trial court's conclusions of law as to (1) the amount of support necessary to meet the reasonable needs of the child and (2) the relative ability of the parties to provide that amount.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]o determine the relative abilities of the parties to provide support, the court 'must hear evidence and make findings of fact on the parents' income[s], estates (e.g., savings; real estate holdings, including fair market value and equity; stocks; and bonds) and present reasonable expenses.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The distinction between two types of retroactive support is pertinent sub judice. In the absence of an existing child support order, an amount of child support awarded prior to the date a party files a complaint therefor is properly classified as retroactive child support and is not based on the presumptive Guidelines. Although prospective child support based upon the presumptive Guidelines requires no factual findings regarding the child’s reasonable needs or the supporting parent’s ability to pay, the trial court must set out specific findings of fact in a reimbursement award for retroactive support, so as to reflect the court’s consideration of the reasonably necessary actual expenditures under G.S. § 50-13.4(c) made on behalf of the child as well as the defendant’s ability to pay during the period in the past for which retroactive support is sought. The second type of retroactive child support is that involved herein, i.e., a retroactive increase in the amount provided in an existing support order.”
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.