148 Cal. App. 4th 596 - Stone v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2021
14 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 53 Cal. 3d 442 - Dix v. Superior Court · 45 Cal. App. 4th 631 - Old Republic Insurance v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance · 116 Cal. App. 4th 201 - In Re Marriage of Crosby & Grooms · 325 N.J. Super. 122 - Peace v. Peace · Weekley v. Weekley
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) A tribunal of this state issuing a support order consistent with the law of this state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order: “(1) As long as this state remains the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or “(2) Until all of the parties who are individuals have filed written consents with the tribunal of this state for a tribunal of another state to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. “(b) A tribunal of this state issuing a child support order consistent with the law of this state may not exercise its continuing jurisdiction to modify the order if the order has been modified by a tribunal of another state pursuant to this chapter or a law substantially similar to this chapter. . . .” (Italics added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““According to the logical implication of Subsection (a)(2), the issuing state may also lose its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify if the parties consent in writing for another state to assume jurisdiction to modify (even though one of the parties or the child continues to reside in the issuing state). . . .” (9 pt. IB West’s U. Laws Ann., supra, U. Interstate Fam. Support Act, comment to § 205, pp. 340-341, italics added.) 3 “This section is perhaps the most crucial provision in UIFSA. . . . [T]he issuing tribunal retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order, except in very narrowly defined circumstances. As long as one of the individual parties or the child continues to reside in the issuing state, and as long as the parties do not agree to the contrary, the issuing tribunal has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over its order—which in practical terms means that it may modify its order. . . . “The other side of the coin follows logically. Just as Subsection (a)(1) defines the retention of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, by clear implication the subsection also defines how jurisdiction to modify may be lost. That is, if all the relevant persons—the obligor, the individual obligee, and the child—have permanently left the issuing state, the issuing state no longer has an appropriate nexus with the parties or child to justify exercise of jurisdiction to modify. Further, the issuing tribunal has no current information about the factual cir”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““(a) Except as specified in subsection (b), only the issuing state shall have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a support order. “(b) In determining whether it believes California or another state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a support order, the local child support agency shall apply the following rules: “(1) Only one state shall have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a support order at any given time. “(2) If the child, the obligee who is an individual, or the obligor resides in the state that issued the controlling order, that state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify.”
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.