384 So. 2d 933 - Schottenstein v. Schottenstein’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 444 So. 2d 1034 - Zediker v. Zediker (1984), 616 So. 2d 436 - Miller v. Schou (1993)
31 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 Schlagenhauf v. Holder · 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris · 334 So. 2d 13 - Shaw v. Shaw · 39 So. 2d 554 - Yandell v. Yandell · Lee v. Lee
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“sometimes upset when they returned from a visitation with their father”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where the appellant establishes a prima facie case for an increase in child support, it is an abuse of discretion for the lower court not to make some award... . Likewise, where there is an increase in support payments, but that increase is not consonant with the established needs of the children, the trial judge abuses his discretion by not providing for an adequate amount... . Even where the only change in circumstance is nothing more than a substantial increase in the earnings of the former spouse, child support may nonetheless be increased... . ... We conclude that the child support payments authorized by the trial judge were simply not in proportion to the father's ample earnings and the abundant needs of the school age children... . We are convinced that there is a need to improve the quality of the children's home, schooling, food, clothing, transportation and recreation. The present level of child support is insufficient to meet the needs of growing children in light of the father's current capability to more adequately support his children. It is our view that he should be required to do so. We find that the trial judge's failure to raise the child support payments to a more adequate level was sufficient to constitute an abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hosseini v. Hosseini“desire to give his children a sense of value about money”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Oldham v. Greene
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.