Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 520 NW2D 839 - Perala v. Carlson

Perala v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2025

15 state decisions

1201994200020102020decided

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 Montgomery v. Montgomery · Reede v. Steen · Bergman v. Bergman · Madler v. McKenzie County · Zacher v. Zacher

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

  1. “"a preponderance of the evidence establishes that a deviation from the guidelines is in the best interest of the supported children and: a. The increased need if support for more than six children is sought in the matter before the court; b. The increased ability of an obligor, with a monthly net income which exceeds ten thousand dollars, to provide child support; c. The increased need if educational costs have been voluntarily incurred, at private schools, with the prior written concurrence of the obligor; d. The increased needs of children with disabling conditions or chronic illness; e. The increased needs of children age twelve and older; f. The increased needs of children related to the cost of child care, purchased by the obligee, for reasonable purposes related to employment, job search, education, or training; g. The increased ability of an obligor, who is able to secure additional income from assets, to provide child support; h. The increased ability of an obligor, who has engaged in an asset transaction for the purpose of reducing the obligor’s income available for payment of child support, to provide child support; i. The reduced ability of the obligor to provide support due to travel expenses incurred solely for the purpose of visiting a child who is the subject of the order; j. The reduced ability of the obligor to pay child support due to a situation, over which the obligor has little or no control, which requires the obligor to incur a continued or fixed expens”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “if a preponderance of the evidence ... establishes, applying criteria established by the public authority which take into consideration the best interests of the child, that the child support amount established under the guidelines is not the correct amount of child support.”
    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.