Edwards v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably Buchholz v. Buchholz (1999), Ackerman v. Ackerman (1999)
29 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 Helbling v. Helbling · Smith v. Smith · Peterson v. Peterson · Schleicher v. Schleicher · Surerus v. Matuska
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“After adjusted gross income from self-employment is determined, all business expenses allowed for taxation purposes, but which do not require actual expenditures, such as depreciation, must be added to determine net income from self-employment. Business costs actually incurred and paid, but not expensed for internal revenue service purposes ... may be deducted to determine net income from self-employment. [Emphasis ours.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Larson v. Larson · Hier v. Hieb“75-02-04.1-02. Determination of support amount—General instructions. ⅜ ⅜ ⅝ * ⅜ ⅜ 2. Calculations assume that the care given to the child during temporary periods when the child resides with the obligor or the obligor’s relatives do not substitute for the child support obligation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The trial court delayed the effective date of Edwards’ support payments to July 1, 1996, explaining that May 1,1996 would be an appropriate date, but the court would provide Edwards a two-month credit for Ciara’s 1996 summer visits. The court’s reasoning was clearly a misapplication of the guidelines. The original divorce decree contemplated each party would have physical custody of Ciara for an equal amount of time and, therefore, neither parent was ordered to pay child support. However, the parties agree Ciara began living most of the time with Blore as of September 1995, when Ciara started school. Under the guidelines, Blore then became the custodial parent. N.D.A.C. § 75-02-04.1-01(4). The trial court must apply its discretion according to the facts. Under these circumstances, and without any proper reason for a contrary effective date, we conclude it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to delay the beginning of Edwards’ support payments later than February 1996, the month in which the motion to begin support payments was filed, because there was a clear duty to support, but no support payments were being made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Geinert v. Geinert
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.