380 So. 2d 180 - Moore v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2001
15 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 Laiche v. Laiche · 282 So. 2d 122 - Marcus v. Burnett · 298 So. 2d 333 - Manuel v. Broderson · Baer v. Simon · 311 So. 2d 578 - Theriot v. Melancon
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The support obligation imposed on the father and the mother of minor children by CC Art. 227 is firmly entrenched in our law and is a matter of public policy. Neither equity (CC Art. 21) nor practical inability to pay (CC Art. 232) overrides this policy or allows a parent to avoid paying his or her share of the obligation where the inability arises solely from that parent's own neglect and failure. Laiche [v. Laiche, 237 La. 298 , 111 So.2d 120 (1959)], supra. See also Halcomb v. Halcomb, 343 So.2d 1183 (La.App. 3d Cir.1977); Baer v. Simon, 334 So.2d 796 (La.App. 3d Cir.1976); Tablada v. Tablada, 356 So.2d 1031 (La.App. 1st Cir.1977); Shows v. Shows, 345 So.2d 975 (La.App. 2d Cir.1977), cert. denied; Theriot v. Melancon, 311 So.2d 578 (La. App. 3d Cir.1975). In the absence of a fortuitous change in circumstances authorizing a reduction in child support, a parent even in financial straits, is obligated to support the legitimate needs of his or her children during their minority. Halcomb, supra."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The father's financial plight arises only from his neglect and his failure to meet his obligations. He has not shown that any fortuitous event or circumstance beyond his control brought about a change in his ability to pay the child support.... The support obligation imposed on the father and the mother of minor children by CC Art. 227 is firmly entrenched in our law and is a matter of public policy. Neither equity (CC Art. 21) nor practical inability to pay (CC Art. 232) overrides this policy or allows a parent to avoid paying his or her share of the obligation where the inability arises solely from that parent's own neglect and failure.... In the absence of a fortuitous change in circumstances authorizing a reduction in child support, a parent even in financial straits, is obligated to support the legitimate needs of his or her children during their minority.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Reed“when the person who gives or receives alimony is replaced in such a situation that the one can no longer give, or that the other is no longer in need of it, in whole or in part...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dupuy v. Dupuy
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.