Hurst v. Hurst’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “That the state of the law in this area may be said to be in Arkansas that the Chancery Court has broad power to modify a provision for child support where it finds a modification to be in the best interest of the children and no hard and fast rule can be laid down concerning the specific nature of the changed circumstances or the degree thereof. We regard this general statement as entirely consistent with the rule expressed in Collie v. Collie, 242 Ark. 297 , 413 S.W.2d 42 (1967), and Shue v. Shue, 162 Ark. 216 , 258 S.W. 128 (1924), to theeffect that whether a modification of child support is justified by changed circumstances is within the sound discretion of the Chancellor.”

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