Mears v. Mears’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 state decisions

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

1. “[t]he changed circumstances relied upon must be material and substantial, not trivial, more or less permanent or continuous, not temporary, and must be such as were not within the knowledge or contemplation of the court when the decree was entered.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re the Marriage of Dawson · In Re the Marriage of Rolek

2. “to the extent their [stepchildren] being in his home may have increased the cost of their maintenance by reason of a higher living scale than that experienced during the marriage of their father and mother.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re the Marriage of Lowry · 437 So. 2d 410 - Tedford v. Dempsey

3. ““ * * * a divorce or dissolution of marriage decree will not be modified as regards child support provisions unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence its. enforcement will be attended by positive wrong or injustice as a result of material and substantial changes in the circumstances since the date of the original decree or of any subsequent intervening proceedings which considered modification of the child support provisions of the original decree. Spaulding v. Spaulding, 204 N.W.2d 634, 635 (Iowa 1973) and authorities cited. “The changed circumstances relied upon must be material and substantial, not trivial, more or less permanent or continuous, not temporary, and must be such as were not within the knowledge or contemplation of the court when the decree was entered. * * *. “The cited cases have placed emphasis on ‘what the decretal court actually knew, not on what the parties knew, or should have known or should have produced at the earlier trial.’ Warren v. Warren, 191 N.W.2d 659, 661 (Iowa 1971). Stated otherwise, if the parties knew of some fact at time of original decree or at time of a subsequent intervening proceeding which considered modification of child support provisions of such decree but the decretal court did not know of such fact, and this fact is being now advanced as a basis for modification, then that fact, if sufficient to cause a subsequent material change in circumstances, would be grounds for a modification.” (Emphasis supplied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re the Marriage of Dawson · Matter of Evans