Philipp v. Stahl’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738B · 29 U.S.C. § 1169 (§ 609 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 666 (§ 466 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco · Fertel-Rust v. Dane County Social Services · Newburgh v. Arrigo · State v. Reldan
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not only to establish a means of enforcing a support order when one or both parties have moved from the jurisdiction where the support order was issued, but also to establish ground rules for modifying such an order, and to do so in a way that avoids conflicting orders issued by courts of different states. Congress obviously anticipated that multi-state conflicts over child support jurisdiction would be avoided if each state were to enact the same rules. [ Philipp, supra, 344 N.J.Super. at 277-78 , 781 A. 2d 1065 (Wecker, J., dissenting).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.