Weeks v. Weeks’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Armstrong v. Armstrong · 639 So. 2d 909 - Hemsley v. Hemsley · 418 So. 2d 764 - McKee v. McKee · 437 So. 2d 410 - Tedford v. Dempsey · 691 So. 2d 897 - Holloman v. Holloman
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) increased needs of older children; (2) an increase in expenses; (3) inflation; (4) a child’s health and special medical or psychological needs; (5) the parties’ relative financial condition and earning capacity; (6) the health and special needs of the parents; (7) the payor’s necessary living expenses; (8) each party’s tax liability; (9) one party’s free use of a residence, furnishings, or automobile; and (10) any other relevant facts and circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McMinn v. McMinn“substantial” discretion); Weeks v. Weeks, 29 So.3d 80, 88 (¶ 32) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (“Whether a party is in contempt is left to the chancellor’s substantial discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A party can be held in contempt for noncompliance with a judgment issued by the chancellor.”
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.