34 N.C. App. 128 - Hicks v. Hicks’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2016
24 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 Tidwell v. Booker · 18 N.C. App. 635 - Williams v. Williams
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n order for child support must be based upon the interplay of the trial court’s conclusions of law as to (1) the amount of support necessary to “meet the reasonable needs of the child” and (2) the relative ability of the parties to provide that amount. These conclusions must themselves be based upon factual findings specific enough to indicate to the appellate court that the judge below took “due regard” of the particular “estates, earnings, conditions, [and] accustomed standard of living” of both the child and the parents.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“What the defendant "should have paid" is not the measure of his liability to plaintiff. The measure of defendant's liability to plaintiff is the amount actually expended by plaintiff which represented the defendant's share of support .... In determining this amount the court must take into consideration the needs of the children and the ability of the defendant to pay during the time for which reimbursement is sought .... It seems clear from the findings and conclusions made by the trial judge that he calculated that defendant should have been paying ... the same amount per month as he will be required to pay in the future. Obviously, the trial judge did not ... [take] into consideration what plaintiff actually expended for the children's support for and in behalf of the defendant. While the amount that the defendant "should have paid" might very well be substantially the same as the amount of his liability to the plaintiff, we cannot assume so.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“imposes upon the father the primary duty to support the child, the mother’s obligation being secondary. A party secondarily liable for the payment of an obligation, who is compelled by the default of the party primarily liable therefor to pay it, may, by action brought within the period of the applicable statute of limitations, compel the party primarily liable to reimburse him for such expenditure. (Citations omitted.)”
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.