Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 552 SW2D 90 - Red v. Red

Red v. Red’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2014

22 state decisions

16019771980199020002010decided

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 Hedtke v. Hedtke · Curtis v. Gibbs · Rice v. Rice · Schwartz v. Jefferson · Fitts v. Fitts

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

  1. “(b) If the court finds that the child, whether institutionalized or not, requires continuous care and personal supervision because of a mental or physical disability and will not be able to support himself, the court may order that payments for the support of the child shall be continued after the 18th birthday and extended for an indefinite period.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A court order ... that provides for the support of a child ... may be modified only by the filing of a motion in the court having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the suit affecting the parent-child relationship.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he clear import of Section 14.05(a) and (b), when read in context with other provisions of all of Title 2 of the Family Code, is that "the court `may order that payments for the support of the child shall be continued after the eighteenth birthday'" only if the grounds therefore exist and are invoked before the child becomes an adult; i.e., before reaching age 18. A contrary interpretation would defer any possibility of finality or discharge of a judgment of this nature, since the matter could be raised throughout the lifetime of an adult who had once been the subject of child support orders in a divorce judgment.”
    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.