34 Ark. App. 118 - Waldon v. Waldon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In adopting this per curiam, the Court creates a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the most recent revision of the Family Support Chart is the amount of child support to be awarded in any judicial proceeding for divorce, separation, paternity, or child support. It shall be sufficient in a particular case to rebut the presumption that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the Family Support Chart is correct, if the court enters in the case a written finding or specific finding on the record that the amount so calculated, after consideration of all relevant factors, is unjust or inappropriate. The court may grant less or more support if the evidence shows that the needs of the dependents require a different level of support. Relevant factors to be considered by the court in determining appropriate amounts of child support shall include: 1. Food; 2. Shelter and utilities; 3. Clothing; 4. Medical expenses; 5. Educational expenses; 6. Dental expenses; 7. Child care; 8. Accustomed standard of living; 9. Recreation; 10. Insurance; 11. Transportation expenses; and 12. Other income or assets available to support the child from whatever source. Additional factors may warrant adjustments to the child support obligations and shall include: 1. The procurement and/or maintenance of life insurance, health insurance, dental insurance for the children’s benefit; 2. The provision or payment of necessary medical, dental, optical, psychol”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arkansas Department of Human Services Child Support Enforcement Unit v. Forte · 43 Ark. App. 60 - Roland v. Roland

2. ““Reference to the chart is mandatory, and the chart itself establishes a rebuttable presumption of the appropriate amount which can only be explained away by written findings stating why the chart amount is unjust or inappropriate.” Black v. Black, 306 Ark. 209, 214 , 812 S.W.2d 480, 482 (1991). The chancellor, in his discretion, is not entirely precluded from adjusting the amount as deemed warranted under the facts of a particular case. Waldon v. Waldon, 34 Ark. App. 118 , 806 S.W.2d 387 (1991). The presumption may be overcome if the chancellor determines, upon consideration of all the relevant factors, that the chart amount is unjust or inappropriate. Id.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clark v. Tabor · Fontenot v. Fontenot

3. “1. Federal and state income tax; 2. Social security (FICA) or railroad retirement equivalent; 3. Medical insurance; and 4. Presently paid support for other dependents by Court order.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stewart v. Winfrey