Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 Ark. 506 - Glover v. Glover

Glover v. Glover’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
3
states following
March 2009
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2009

20 state decisions

120198019902000decided

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

Relies on Loomis v. Loomis · Holley v. Holley · Riegler v. Riegler · Roberts v. Roberts · Finkbeiner v. Finkbeiner

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

  1. “-Although we are not insensitive to the generosity of a noncustodial parent, as here, who provides additional support for his children to that expressly ordered by the court, we do not, as a matter of law, give credit for voluntary expenditures. This is particularly true in child support cases in view of the fact that the custodial parent makes arrangements for the child’s care “in reliance on a proper compliance with the decree” by the noncustodial parent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The decree recited that the “defendant is paying considerably less than the support chart recognizes as equitable based on his net earning capacity.” However, [the chancellor] found that the appellant was not entitled to an increase in child support. Obviously, the chancellor recognized that any reference to “a chart” is only one factor in making his decision.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.