Garza v. Blanton’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
May 2012
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Walker v. Packer · Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. · Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals · Ex Parte McIntyre · In the Interest of Valadez
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The child support guidelines are intended to guide the court in determining the amount of retroactive child support, if any, to be ordered. (b) In ordering retroactive child support, the court shall consider the net resources of the obligor during the relevant time period and whether: (1) the mother of the child had made any previous attempts to notify the obligor of his paternity or probable paternity; (2) the obligor had knowledge of his paternity or probable paternity; (3) the order of retroactive child support will impose an undue financial hardship on the obligor or the obli-gor’s family; and (4) the obligor has provided actual support or other necessaries before the filing of the action. (c) It is presumed that a court order limiting the amount of retroactive child support to an amount that does not exceed the total amount of support that would have been due for the four years preceding the date the petition seeking support was filed is reasonable and in the best interest of the child. (d) The presumption created under this section may be rebutted by evidence that the obligor: (1) knew or should have known that the obligor was the father of the child for whom support is sought; and (2) sought to avoid the establishment of a support obligation to the child. (e) An order under this section limiting the amount of retroactive support does not constitute a variance from the guidelines requiring the court to make specific findings under Section 154.130. (f) Notwithstandin”
2 later decisions 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.