154 Cal. App. 4th 1316 - Knabe v. Brister’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 38 Cal. 3d 396 - Blanton v. Womancare, Inc. · 10 Cal. 4th 578 - Levy v. Superior Court · 70 Cal. 2d 272 - Linsk v. Linsk · 148 Cal. App. 4th 596 - Stone v. Davis · 198 Cal. App. 3d 332 - In Re Marriage of Helsel
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.
“'[T]he central jurisdictional feature of UIFSA is the concept of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. Under UIFSA, a court that makes a valid child support order retains exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order as long as the requirements for continuing, exclusive jurisdiction remain fulfilled. The court of another state may enforce a child support order registered in that state, but may not modify it unless the decree state has lost its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.' [Citations.]”
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.