29 N.C. App. 342 - Hampton v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently November 2016
12 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
Relies on Crosby v. Crosby · Swicegood v. Swicegood · 12 N.C. App. 286 - Austin v. Austin · Stanback v. Stanback · 20 N.C. App. 149 - Manning v. Manning
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“G.S. 5043.2(a) provides that an order for custody of a minor child “shall award the custody of such child to such person, ... as will, in the opinion of the judge, best promote the interest and welfare of the child.” This provision codified the rule declared many times by the North Carolina Supreme Court that in custody cases the welfare of the child is the polar [sic] star by which the court’s decision must be governed. . . . The judgment of the trial court should contain findings of fact which sustain the conclusion of law that custody of the child is awarded to the person who will best promote the interest and welfare of the child. . . . While the welfare of the child is always to be treated as the paramount consideration, . . . wide discretionary power is vested in the trial judge. . . . The normal rule in regard to the custody of children is that where there is competent evidence to support a judge’s finding of fact, a judgment supported by such findings will not be disturbed on appeal. . . . The facts found must be adequate for the appellate court to determine that the judgment is sustained by competent evidence, however.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The court’s findings also failed to support the award of child support. G.S. 50-13.4(c) requires “[payments ordered for the support of a minor child shall be in such amount as to meet the reasonable needs of the child. . . .” Where the court does not make appropriate findings based on competent evidence as to what are the reasonable needs of the children for health, education, and maintenance, it is error to direct payments for their support. (Citations omitted.) No findings were made in the instant case concerning the needs of the children.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) the existence of a marital relationship; (2) the spouse is (a) actually or substantially dependent upon the other spouse for maintenance and support, or (b) is substantially in need of maintenance and support from the other spouse; and (3) the supporting spouse is capable of making the required payments.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robbins v. Robbins
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.