Perez v. Hogan’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
November 1989
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 302 So. 2d 903 - Frederic v. Frederic · Bailey v. Jones · 493 So. 2d 1165 - Teasdel v. Teasdel · Hogan v. Hogan · 439 So. 2d 1208 - Wasson v. Wasson
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Considering the evidence, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the claims for increase and reduction of support. Regarding child support we conclude that, while Mr. Hogan is bound by the agreement to pay the items stated therein despite the majority of the two older children, the fact that they are now majors means he is not bound to support them beyond the scope of the agreement. "Accordingly, Mrs. Hogan is not entitled to seek an increase on behalf of the major children. As for Tammi, the only child still a minor, Mrs. Hogan made insufficient showing that her needs had increased beyond what they were when the in globo award was set.” 534 So. 2d at 481 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morrison v. Morrison
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.