Ford v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
155 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 155 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Stehle v. Zimmerebner (2009), Lewellyn v. Lewellyn (2002)
155 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 Taylor v. Taylor · McWhorter v. McWhorter · Skokos v. Skokos · Kelly v. Kelly · Norwood v. Robinson
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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“intentionally broad and designed to encompass the widest range of sources consistent with this State's policy to interpret 'income' broadly for the benefit of the child.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Grimsley v. Drewyor · Dare v. Frost“means any form of payment, periodic or otherwise, due to an individual, regardless of source, including wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, workers' compensation, disability, payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program, and interest less proper deductions. Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 10(II)(a). The definition of”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dare v. Frost · Fischer v. Fischer“We review chancery cases de novo, but will only reverse if the chancellor’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. We give due deference to the chancellor’s superior position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. In cases involving child custody, great deference is given to the findings of the chancellor. This court has held that there is no other case in which the superior position, ability, and opportunity of the chancellor to observe the parties carries a greater weight than one involving the custody of minor children. The best interest of the child is the polestar in every child custody case; all other considerations are secondary.”
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.