Towne v. Towne’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably 574 So. 2d 1376 - Lawrence v. Lawrence (1991), Chaker v. Chaker (1990)
36 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 Armstrong v. Armstrong · Martindell v. Martindell · Harris v. Harris · Jensen v. Jensen · Field v. Field
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the order increasing [or decreasing] the obligation were required to be prospective from the date of its entry, then the party owing the support obligation [or the party to whom such obligation is due] could by dilatory tactics postpone his obligation to pay increased [or decreased] support almost indefinitely, regardless of how circumstances might have changed. Such a result would defeat the purpose of the changed circumstances rule.” Towne v. Towne, [ 150 Vt. 286 ] 552 A.2d 404, 405 (Vt.1988) quoting Trezevant v. Trezevant, 403 A.2d 1134, 1137 (D.C.1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Olson v. Garbe“should be left to the sound discretion of the trial court, because it is most familiar with the often complicated history of the case and, thus, better able to make such a determination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“any reasonable date on or after the date of filing of the motion to amend the support order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cd v. Nm
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.