Solis v. Tea’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Moreover, this Court will not substitute its own opinion for the inferences and deductions made by the Trial Judge where those inferences are supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Carter v. Blake · Irwin v. Shelby

2. “are clearly wrong and justice requires their overturn.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Carter v. Blake · Fowler v. Fowler

3. “Moreover, although a court may not arbitrarily disregard a separation agreement, its power to review the adequacy (or excessiveness) of child support provisions is not “handcuffed” by the existence of a marital contract. See Stancill v. Stancill, Md.App., 286 Md. 530 , 408 A.2d 1030 (1979). See generally 71 A.L. R.2d 1370 (1960). The agreement will be evaluated according to a “best interests of the child” criteria with the terms of the contract being enforced only where they appear to be reasonable and fair. See, e.g., Moulton v. Moulton, Vt.Supr., 134 Yt. 125, 352 A.2d 680 (1976). This Court stated in G.W.F. v. G.P.F., Del. Supr., 271 A.2d 38 (1970): “ ... it is only when the parents’ contract is consistent with the welfare and best interests of the child that the agreement for support may be given controlling effect.” Id. at 39 . Thus, according to the overwhelming weight of authority, child support contracts demand stricter scrutiny by the courts and bind neither the child, the public, nor the reviewing judicial body.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. King