Ball v. Minnick’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Bowser v. Blom (2002), Christianson v. Ely (2003)
61 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 Melzer v. Witsberger · Conway v. Dana · Costello v. LeNoir · Commonwealth v. Sharpe · 349 Pa. Super. 524 - LaBuda v. LaBuda
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) If the amount of support deviates from the amount of support determined by the guidelines, the trier of fact shall specify, in writing, the guideline amount of support, and the reasons for, and findings of fact justifying, the amount of the deviation. (b) In deciding whether to deviate from the amount of support determined by the guidelines, the trier of fact shall consider (1) unusual needs and unusual fixed obligations; (2) other support obligations of the parties; (3) other income in the household; (4) ages of the children; (5) asset of the parties; (6) medical expenses not covered by insurance; (7) standard of living of the parties and their children; and (8) other relevant and appropriate factors, including the best interests of the child or children.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“shall be determined in accordance with the support guidelines”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As we said previously, deviations are governed by Rule 1910.16-4 in support proceedings involving parties whose incomes fall within the guideline figures. Subsection (b) of this Rule sets forth the only factors that a trier of fact may consider in determining whether to deviate. The trier of fact is required to consider all relevant factors and any one factor alone will not necessarily dictate that the amount of support should be other than the guideline figure. Rather, the trier of fact must carefully consider all the relevant factors and make a reasoned decision as to whether the consideration thereof suggests that there are special needs and/or circumstances which render deviation necessary. Furthermore, where the trier of fact does determine that the circumstances warrant a departure from the guideline amount, the justification for any such deviation must be explicitly set forth in writing, giving particular attention to those factors which this Court, in adopting the guidelines, has specifically deemed relevant. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4(a). General references to the effect that “all relevant factors have been considered” is wholly insufficient.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.