Ainbender v. Ainbender’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 2004
11 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 66 Wash. 2d 780 - Davidson v. Davidson · 191 So. 2d 528 - Howard v. Howard · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Byrne v. Byrne · Moore v. Moore · State Ex Rel. Whatley v. Mueller
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no order of support issued by a court of this state when acting as a responding state shall supersede any other order of support but the amounts for a particular period paid pursuant to either order shall be credited against amounts accruing or accrued for the same period under both. That section was subsequently amended in 1968 and transposed into section 31 of RURESA which declared that a support order made by a court of this state pursuant to this Act does not nullify and is not nullified by ... a support order made by a court of any other state pursuant to a substantially similar Act or any other law, regardless of priority of issuance, unless otherwise specified by the court. Amounts paid for a particular period pursu ant to any support order made by the court of another state shall be credited against the amounts accruing or accrued for the same period under any support order made by the court of this state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Garrett“". . . [T]he original order of support rendered in the court of the initiating state is unaffected by the orders subsequently rendered in another state under the Uniform Act, except to the extent that payments made pursuant to one must be credited against payments accruing or accrued under the other for the same period or periods."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte O'Neill
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.