Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 N.C. App. 247 - Bookholt v. Bookholt

136 N.C. App. 247 - Bookholt v. Bookholt’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

35 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Quick v. Quick · Williams v. Williams · 133 N.C. App. 221 - Cox v. Cox · 58 N.C. App. 524 - Whedon v. Whedon · Thompson v. Burlington Industries

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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he determination of what constitutes the reasonable needs and expenses of a party in an alimony action is within the discretion of the trial judge, and he is not required to accept at face value the assertion of living expenses offered by the litigants themselves.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Decisions regarding the amount of alimony are left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a manifest abuse of that discretion.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “may resort to common sense and every-day experiences”
    2 later decisions 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.