Riegler v. Riegler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The matter of the children’s college education was deferred for a later decision. What we have to say in Part V of this opinion may be pertinent if that question comes up in the future. * # * V. The decree for separate maintenance awarded Mrs. Riegler $600 a month ‘for maintenance of herself and the four children now in her custody.’ In the interval between that decree and the one now being reviewed Mrs. Riegler spent a total of $3,187.68 for college educational expenses of her oldest daughter, who was of age when the separate maintenance decree was entered, and for similar expenses of her next daughter, who reached 18 before the rendition of the later decree. The chancellor directed Dr. Riegler to repay $2,749.00 of those outlays. That direction was an error. Ordinarily a mother who spends more for child support than the court has allowed her cannot recover the excess, because an award of child support ought not be increased retroactively. She should apply in advance for a larger allowance. Gant v. Gant, 209 Ark. 576 , 191 S.W. 2d 596 (1946). On the other hand, a father may by contract bind himself to go beyond the decree in supporting a daughter who has reached her majority. Worthington v. Worthington, 207 Ark. 185 , 179 S.W. 2d 648 (1944). Mrs. Riegler insists that the proof establishes such a contract on Dr. Riegler’s part. We do not so find. Dr. Riegler testified as most fathers would, that he wanted all his children to have a college education. We do not read his testi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Riegler v. Riegler