Cooper v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2015
21 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 Owen v. Owen · Hamilton Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Hamilton · Boden v. Boden · Rice v. Rice · Lanahan v. Nevius
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the party seeking modification shows (1) a change in circumstances which was unforeseen at the time the agreement was entered and (2) that the change is both substantial and material to the welfare and best interests of the child.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Clark v. Clark · Albus v. Albus“if the party seeking modification shows (1) a change in circumstances which was unforeseen at the time the agreement was entered and (2) that the change is both substantial and material to the welfare and best interests of the children. ... Presumably, at the time of a separation agreement the best interests of the children are a paramount consideration. If, thereafter, the best interests of the children are threatened in a material way by circumstances unforeseen at the time of the agreement it is reasonable for a court to entertain a request for modification of either custody or support provisions.... However, a change in the parents’ financial circumstances alone cannot provide the basis for modifying a contract between the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nevarez v. Nevarez“a parent [may] seek a modification of a support order upon a showing of a material and substantial change in the needs of the child or the ability of the parent with a legal duty to pay support to pay.” D.C.Code § 16-916.01(r)(4)(C). 3 . He asserted, in particular, that the child now lived with him 40% of the time, and that Hollis had since become a lawyer, thus increasing her earning potential. 4 . The Cooper standard allowed modification only upon a showing (1) of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mazza v. Hollis
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.