Montgomery v. Waller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he legal obligation of a party to support dependents who are not the subject of the action before the court and who are in that party's household.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hildebrand v. Hildebrand · Vickers v. Wellbrink

2. “§ 315.1. Rebuttable presumption; deviation from guidelines by court; stipulations by parties A. The guidelines set forth in this Part are to be used in any proceeding to establish or modify child support filed on or after October 1, 1989. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support obtained by use of the guidelines set forth in this Part is the proper amount of child support. B. The court may deviate from the guidelines set forth in this Part if their application would not be in the best interest of the child or would be inequitable to the parties. The court shall give oral or written reasons for the deviation. The reasons shall be made part of the record of the proceedings. C. In determining whether to deviate from the guidelines, the court's considerations may include: (1) That the combined adjusted gross income of the parties is not within the amounts shown on the schedule in R.S. 9:315.14. If the combined adjusted gross income of the parties is less than the lowest sum shown on the schedule, the court shall determine an amount of child support based on the facts of the case. If the combined adjusted gross income of the parties exceeds the highest sum shown on the schedule, the provisions of R.S. 9:315.10(B) shall apply. (2) The legal obligation of a party to support dependents who are not the subject of the action before the court and who are in that party's household. (3) The extraordinary medical expenses of a party, or extraordinary medical”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 590 So. 2d 1250 - Fancett v. Fancett · 594 So. 2d 1135 - Ellzey v. Ellzey

3. “[a]ny other consideration which would make application of the guidelines not in the best interest of the child or children or inequitable to the parties.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 773 So. 2d 185 - Curtis v. Curtis · 720 So. 2d 412 - Lehr v. Lehr