568 So. 2d 816 - Finney v. Eagly’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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

1. “Thus, for two primary reasons, we conclude here that the full faith and credit clause does not restrict Colorado from applying its majority age to a subsequent child support action where a decree from another state with a different majority age'is involved. First, the absence of the parties from the rendering state, particularly the obligor and the child, diminishes the rendering state’s interest in enforcing the decree in other states. Second, although the action here was not brought as a URESA action, the rendering state has, by adopting URESA laws, evidenced a general willingness to permit the laws of the obligor state to be applicable to further nonmodifiable child support payments. We therefore conclude that, because none of the parties to the initial decree still reside in California and since California has adopted URESA, the full faith and credit clause does not preclude the application of Colorado law in this instance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Elkins v. James