Ivey v. Ayers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Missouri Act does not impose a duty on the father to support a minor child. It provides the procedure for enforcing an otherwise existing duty. Section 454.070. See also an excellent dis cussion of this question in an article by-Blue and Caselman, The Missouri Reciprocal Uniform Support of Dependents Law, 20 U. of Kansas City L.Rev. 164. ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ “It has long been the rule in this state that a father has the duty to support his minor children. Wrigley v. Wrigley, 345 Mo. 207 , 132 S.W.2d 989 ; Robinson v. Robinson, 268 Mo. 703 , 186 S.W. 1032 ; In re Scarritt, 76 Mo. 565 , 43 Am.Rep. 768 ; Semon v. Illgenfritz, 223 Mo.App. 546 , 15 S.W.2d 912 ; Worthington v. Worthington, 212 Mo.App. 216 , 253 S.W. 443 . We know of no reason why this duty does not extend to a minor child across a state line. Certainly the humanitarian reasons giving rise to this duty would not support defendant’s contention. The duty of a father to support his minor children is frequently enforced by a court granting a divorce to the parents, and the procedure provided for in the uniform reciprocal support of dependents laws is designed to afford an additional means of enforcing that duty, whether or not the parents are divorced, when the father is in a state different from that of the minor child. Section 454.030.””

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

2. ““Prior to the enactment of these laws great difficulty was experienced in compelling husbands and fathers who left the state to provide support for their dependents. The increasing number ofrunaway husbands and fathers created a social problem which compelled interstate cooperation in order to obtain support for destitute dependents, and led to the enactment of the reciprocal enforcement of support laws. One of the primary purposes of these laws was to insure that he who performs a man’s part in procreation shall also perform a man’s part in providing support for his progeny.” Id. at 794 . (emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 28 Pa. D. & C.4th 155 - Thomas v. Miller

3. “§ 23 [Rules of Evidence] In any hearing under this law, the court shall be bound by the same rules of evidence that bind the [here insert the name of some court in the state that has relaxed the requirement that the technical rules of evidence must be followed, such as the Juvenile Court, the Domestic Relations Court].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. County of Stanislaus v. Pratt