Meehan v. Meehan’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably 700 F. Supp. 973 - Guenin v. Sendra Corp. (1988), Bemis Co., Inc. v. Rubush (1981)
1 district · 44 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 Anderson v. Anderson · 166 Ind. App. 620 - Flora v. Flora · 133 Ind. App. 645 - Estate of McClain v. McClain · Whitman v. Whitman · 164 Ind. App. 215 - Temple v. Temple
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Provisions of an order with respect to child support ... may be modified or revoked. (b) Except as provided in section 2 of this chapter, modification may be made only: (1) upon a showing of changed cireum-stances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable....”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The standard of review to determine whether a trial court has abused its discretion in modifying a support order is well settled. We do not weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, but rather consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, together with the reasonable inferences which can be drawn therefrom. If, from that viewpoint, there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial court, it will not be disturbed, even though we might have reached a different conclusion had we been the triers of fact. (Citations omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Cognizant that the specter of a rule whereby support agreements were unilaterally binding would cloud parties’ negotiations, the legislature provided them with a mutually-applieable standard, based on equitable considerations, against which the parties can assess the likelihood that a support agreement will subsequently be modified. If our courts deviate even slightly from this delicate balance struck by the legislature, parties will be inhibited in their negotiations and the purpose of the Act will be frustrated.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.