246 N.J. Super. 1 - Ohlhoff v. Ohlhoff’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Miller v. Miller (1999), 326 N.J. Super. 442 - Halliwell v. Halliwell (1999)
30 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 42 U.S.C. § 666 (§ 466 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Busik v. Levine · Butz v. Carter · Gibbons v. Gibbons · Knight v. City of Margate · 131 N.J. Super. 72 - Di Tolvo v. Di Tolvo
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No payment or installment of an order for child support, or those portions of an order for child support established prior to or subsequent to the effective date of P.L. 1993, c. 45 (c. 2A:17-56.23a), shall be retroactively modified by the court except [(portion deleted here)] with respect to the period during which there is a pending application for modification, but only from the date the notice of motion was mailed either directly or through the appropriate agent. The written notice will state that a change of circumstances has occurred....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although a court order or agreement of the parties may allocate separate amounts as alimony for the supported spouse and support for each child, these allocations are often arbitrary and may not accurately reflect the actual needs of the individual members of the family.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“contribution to which we referred previously may not be directly transmogrified into a reduction in the financial needs of the dependent spouse. Consequently, even if a child's move into the home of the supporting spouse has sufficient permanency to warrant a complete termination of support for that child, it may be inappropriate to require the dependent spouse to pay child support. We noted previously that the child support guidelines may be disregarded or modified for good cause. R. 5:6A; Appendix IX-A,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.