Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 20 SO3D 670 - Smith v. Smith

Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 547 So. 2d 766 - Nichols v. Tedder · 622 So. 2d 1226 - Crow v. Crow · 722 So. 2d 614 - Lahmann v. Hallmon · 588 So. 2d 428 - Varner v. Varner · 574 So. 2d 1376 - Lawrence v. Lawrence

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The law remains firm that court-ordered child-support payments vest in the child as they accrue and may not thereafter be modified or forgiven, only paid. But this does not mean that equity may not at times suggest ex post facto approval of extra judicial adjustments in the manner and form in which support payments have been made. The noncustodial parent may be entitled to credit for any additional support which ¡ he/she has evinced by satisfactory proof to the trial court. [[Image here]] In a contempt action concerning past-due child support, when the custodial parent introduces evidence that the noncustodial parent who is required to pay the support has failed to do so, a prima facie case of contempt has been made. At this point, the burden falls on the defending party, to avoid a finding of contempt, to prove that there was payment or other defense, and this proof must be “clear and convincing and rise above a state of doubtfulness.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Without doubt or hesitation, we encourage post-divorce detente that parents may cooperate in rearing their children. It follows that, from time to time, adjustments can and should be made without burdening the courts. The law remains firm that court-ordered child[-]support payments vest in the child as they accrue and may not thereafter be modified or forgiven, only paid. But this does not mean that equity may not at times suggest ex post facto approval of extra-judicial adjustments in the manner and form in which support payments have been made.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.