Johnson v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We note at the outset Johnson is mistaken in his assertion that an action under the Act requires a pre-existing judicial determination of support duty. He correctly concludes the Act does not 'create’ obligations of support. It does, however, enforce such responsibilities, and broadly defines 'duty of support’ to include 'any duty of support imposed or imposable by law, or by any court order, decree or judgment, whether interlocutory or final, whether incidental to a proceeding for divorce, legal separation, separate maintenance or otherwise.’ IC 31-2-1-2 (f). It is evident no previous court judgment is required to create an obligation which is 'imposable’ by law. Banton v. Mathers, (1974) 159 Ind.App. 634 , 309 N.E.2d 167 (the Act’s remedy need not be predicated upon a divorce decree); Olson v. Olson, (Mo. App. 1976) 534 S.W.2d 526 ; Banks v. McMorris, (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 723 , 121 Cal.Rptr. 185. Olson correctly observed '[a] duty of support "imposable by law” is one arising out of a relationship —■ a duty of support to be adjudicated’ (emphasis in original). 534 S.W.2d 530 .” Johnson, Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d at 571 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth of Virginia v. Autry

2. “"[The duty of support], of course, may grow out of the order of support or a judgment or decree but is equally a duty if it never has received judicial attention and now is the basis of litigation for the first time under the Act.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth of Virginia v. Autry