162 Cal. App. 4th 136 - Edwards v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 53 Cal. App. 4th 1139 - In Re Marriage of Drake · 24 Cal. App. 4th 1702 - In Re Marriage of Olsen · 22 Cal. App. 4th 942 - Askew v. Askew
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.
“We review orders granting or denying a request for modification of a child support order for abuse of discretion. [Citations.] The trial court's exercise of its discretion must be `informed and considered' [citations], and the trial court may not `ignore or contravene the purposes of the law' [citation], [¶] To the extent [father] challenges the trial court's factual findings, we review the findings for substantial evidence, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed in the trial court. [Citation.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The fact [the mother] receives mail for [the child] at her address, that he keeps some of his `stuff' at her home, and that he visits her from time to time, do not support the trial court's finding that [the mother] has `primary physical responsibility' [citation] for [the child] for any percentage of time. In this fact situation, neither parent retains `primary physical responsibility' of their adult son for any period of time. Accordingly, the guideline formula, by its terms, is inapplicable. Stated another way, application of the guideline formula `would be unjust or inappropriate' due to the particular circumstances of this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[o]ne of the essential factors in calculating child support pursuant to the guideline is the `approximate percentage of time that the high earner has or will have primary physical responsibility for the children compared to the other parent.' (§ 4055, subd. (b)(1)(D).) [¶] Here, neither parent retains `primary physical responsibility' for [the child] for any period of time. He turned 18 in November 2002. As an adult, [the child] is not in the custody of either parent, [¶] Moreover, in August 2003, [the child] relocated to San Francisco to attend college.”
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.