Nelson v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Grode v. Grode (1996), Billion v. Billion (1996)
33 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 Hanks v. Hanks · Thompson v. Thompson · 57 Ohio App. 2d 226 - Oatley v. Oatley · Peterson v. Peterson · Holforty v. Holforty
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We find that plaintiff is misinterpreting the relationship between his support obligation and the supplemental security income. The supplemental income payments are intended to insure a minimum level of income for persons who are over age 65, or blind, or disabled, who do not have sufficient income and resources to maintain a standard of living at the established federal minimum income level. Title 42, Section 1381, U.S. Code; 20 C.F.R., Section 416.110. The amount of supplemental income an eligible individual will receive is based on his income and resources. Title 42, Section 1381a, U.S. Code. In calculating an individual’s income, if the individual is a child the support he receives from an absent parent is to be considered. Title 42, Section 1382a(b)(9), U.S. Code. There is a redetermination of eligibility and the amount of benefits at frequent intervals. Title 42, Section 1382(c)(1); 20 C.F.R., Section 416.222. The supplemental security income payments are intended to supplement other income, not substitute for it. The amount of supplemental security income received is modified as the amount of the recipient’s other income changes, not vice versa.” 57 Ohio App. 2d at 227-28 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[UJnder Social Security regulations, SSID payments are based on the parent’s support payments, and are raised or lowered by the amount of the parent’s support. These payments are paid to provide supplemental income to cover a disability, not as a substitute for child support.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hawkins v. Peterson“[t]he income of a subsequent spouse or contribution of a third party to the income or expenses of that parent but only if the application of the schedule works a financial hardship on either parent[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Grunewaldt v. Bisson
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.