Gardner v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 2010
1 district · 14 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 Fearon v. Fearon · Strater v. Strater · Fournier v. Fournier · Pendexter v. Pendexter · Wilson v. Wilson
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.
“(1) The appeal from the judgment reversing the modification order is sustained in part and denied in part; to the extent that the modification order operated prospectively the judgment of the Superior Court is set aside, to the extent that the modification order operated retroactively the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. (2) The appeal from the judgment fixing arrearage is denied; the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. (3) The cross-appeal as to counsel fees is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (4) The case is remanded to the District Court for the purpose of having it fix the effective date of its modification order and award all accrued arrear-age to the effective date of its modification order. (5) Each party is to bear its own costs on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wood v. Wood“In fixing the amount to be contributed by the father for the support of the minor children of divorced parents, the court should| consider the needs of the children, the ¡assets of each parent, their respective ages, earning capacities, incomes and injdebtedness, state of health, future prospécts, the existence of other dependents, and any other factors which will aid the court in reaching a just and equitable resjilt, having in mind that the primary state purpose is to implement the natural duty of both parents to support their offspring.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hebert v. Hebert“the primary purpose of child support is the best interest and welfare of the child. Support, as every other duty arising from the relationship of parent and child, is the equal responsibility of both mother and father, to be discharged in accordance with their respective capacity and ability. Id. at 749 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wood v. Wood
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.