Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 MASSAPPCT 192 - Peddar v. Peddar

Peddar v. Peddar’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
4
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2015

8 state decisions

50199720002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738B

Relies on Good Hope Industries, Inc. v. Ryder Scott Co. · Child Support Enforcement Division of Alaska v. Brenckle · 13 Mass. App. Ct. 158 - Burtner v. Burnham · Delk v. Gonzalez · Archambault v. Archambault

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

  1. “(a) Findings. — The Congress Finds that— (1) there is a large and growing number of child support cases annually involving disputes between parents who reside in different States; (2) the laws by which the courts of different jurisdictions determine their authority to establish child support orders are not uniform; (b) Statement of Policy. — In view of the findings made in subsection (a), it is necessary to establish national standards under which the courts of the various States shall determine their jurisdiction to issue a child support order and the effect to be given by each State to child support orders issued by the courts of other States. (c) Purposes. — The purposes of this Act ... are— (1) to facilitate the enforcement of child support orders among the States; (2) to discourage continuing interstate controversies over child support in the interest of greater financial stability and secure family relationships for the child; and (3) to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict among State courts in the establishment of child support orders.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.