Favrow v. Vargas’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

cited by 94 later decisions

states following

March 2025

most recently cited

90 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Unkelbach v. McNary (1998), Maturo v. Maturo (2010)

90 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

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 152

Relies on Turner v. Turner · Guille v. Guille · Favrow v. Vargas · Finch v. Finch · Penfield v. Savage

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

“. . . [A]ny final order for the periodic payment of permanent alimony or support . . . may at any time thereafter be continued, set aside, altered or modified by said court upon a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of either party or upon a showing that the final order for child support substantially deviates from the child support guidelines established pursuant to section 46b-215a , unless there was a specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that any deviation of less than fifteen per cent from the child support guidelines is not substantial and any deviation of fifteen per cent or more from the guidelines is substantial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Greenwald v. Rybicki, No. Fa 920126685s (Jun. 16, 1997) · 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 15228 - Dattolo v. Doar, No. Fa 96 03866769 (Dec. 7, 2000)
“The child support and arrearage guidelines . . . shall be considered in all determinations of child support amounts . . . In all such determinations there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of such awards which resulted from the application of such guidelines is the amount of support . . . to be ordered.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 4876 - MacAluso v. MacAluso, No. Fa 930130085s (May 7, 1997) · 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 2425 - Hicks v. Eburg, No. Fa86 0021233s (Feb. 14, 2001)
“[r]etroactive modifications of support orders are . . . impermissible.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Labrie v. Labrie, No. Fa 99 0155491 (May 20, 2002) · 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2709 - Ierubino v. Ierubino, No. Fa94 031 47 40 S (Mar. 5, 2002)

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.