McFadden v. Bramlett’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. “We regard as settled law the rule that an increase in child support must be based upon a showing of changed circumstances. Barnes v. Barnes, 246 Ark. 624 , 439 S.W.2d 37 (1969); Haney v. Haney, 235 Ark. 60 , 357 S.W.2d 19 (1961), where Justice Smith stated for the court: “ . . . any increase in the allowance for the support of the children must be based upon a showing that conditions have changed since the entry of the decree.” One seeking the modification has the burden of showing a change in circumstances requiring modification. Collie v. Collie, 242 Ark. 297 , 413 S.W.2d 42 (1967); Riegler v. Riegler, 246 Ark. 434 , 438 S.W.2d 468 (1969). Moreover, the consideration has a relative aspect: the needs of one party as compared to the ability of the other. Lively v. Lively [ 222 Ark. 501 , 261 S.W.2d 409 ], supra, and Watnick v. Bookman, 209 Ark. 696 , 192 S.W.2d 131 (1946). The assumption, upon considering a modification of the child support provision of a decree, is that the Chancellor correctly fixed the proper amount in the original divorce decree. Collie v. Collie, supra. In the instant case, we can find no evidence in the record to support an increase in child support on the basis of changed circumstances. Appellant merely testified as to his income and his financial circumstances for the year 1979, but there was no evidence to show that his economic situation had changed since the order of February 7, 1979, wherein appellant was ordered to pay $75.00 per month. Certainly”

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