37 Va. App. 240 - Shoup v. Shoup’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 state decisions

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

1. “a. [Father] shall pay the amount of $2,177.00 per month, as and for child support, to [mother]. Child support shall continue until a minor child dies, marries, becomes emancipated, or reaches the age of eighteen years, whichever occurs first, or until further order of the court.... c. In the event that child care costs decline in a month, the wife shall notify the husband who shall reduce his payment of childcare costs on the first day of the next month by his proportionate share of such decline.... e. If there is any change in circumstances, the parties shallfollow the child support guidelines contained in § 20-108.2 of the Code of Virginia or its successor statute and any other relevant Virginia statutes and case law for determination of child support.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Kaminsky v. Kaminsky

2. “Any court may affirm, ratify and incorporate by reference in its decree dissolving a marriage or decree of divorce ... any valid agreement between the parties, or provisions thereof, concerning ... custody and maintenance of their minor children.... Provisions in such agreements for the modification of child support shall be valid and enforceable. Unless otherwise provided for in such agreement or decree incorporating such agreement, such future modifications shall not require a subsequent court decree.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 59 Va. App. 816 - Virostko v. Virostko

3. “A rule requiring parents to return to court for approval of a renegotiated amount of child support, as provided in an agreement that has been affirmed, ratified, and incorporated into an earlier decree, would undermine the Commonwealth’s policy in favor of prompt resolution of disputes concerning the maintenance and care of children upon divorce. [T]he resources of both the court and the parties would be wasted by requiring a trial judge to sua sponte require parties to litigate a settled matter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kaminsky v. Kaminsky