Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 366 SO2D 1022 - Gardner v. Gardner

Gardner v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
October 2001
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2001

8 state decisions

501978198019902000decided

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 Newson v. Newson · Phillips v. Phillips · 315 So. 2d 402 - Gauthreaux v. Gauthreaux · 339 So. 2d 1262 - Shanklin v. Shanklin · Smith v. Smith

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

  1. “alimony allowed should not be eaten up partiallly by attorney's fees, and the child thereby deprived, in part, of the object and purpose of allotting it.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The obvious purpose of La.R.S. 9:305 is to insure that of alimony payments due a minor child, the entire sum will be available for the minor's support in the event the parent with custody is required to employ counsel to make such past due payments executory.... We are of the opinion that the salutary effect of La.R.S. 9:305 should not be allowed to be defeated by the expedient of a spouse in arrears tendering payment immediately before trial and after the spouse with custody has been compelled to engage counsel to enforce arrearage. Any other holding would negate the purpose of such payments."”
    2 later decisions 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.