Carter v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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.

1. “§ 32. Persons legally liable for support of dependents. For the purpose of this article, the following persons in one state are declared to be liable for the support of dependents residing or found in the same state or in another state having substantially similar or reciprocal laws, and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, may be required to pay for such support a fair and reasonable sum, as may be determined by the court having jurisdiction of the respondent in a proceeding instituted under this article: 1. Husband liable for support of his wife; 2. Wife liable for support of her husband; 3. Parents liable for support of their child or children under twenty-one years of age. As amended L.1980, c. 281, § 3. Additional provisions in DRL here pertinent are found under Article 13, Provisions Applicable to More Than One Type of Matrimonial Action; § 236, Alimony, temporary and permanent; § 237, Counsel fees and expenses; and § 240, Custody and maintenance of children. Section 412 of the Family Court Act states: § 412. Married person’s duty to support spouse A married person is chargeable with the support of his or her spouse and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, may be required to pay for his or her support a fair and reasonable sum, as the court may determine, having due regard to the circumstances of the respective parties. Section 413 of the Family Court Act states: § 413. Parents’ duty to support child The parents of a chi”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Abraham & Straus v. Francis (In Re Francis) · 474 F. Supp. 1141 - Wiesenfeld v. State of NY

2. “The traditional and statutory notion (DRL § 32) that a father has the primary obligation to support his children neither reflects the realities of modern life nor complies with our constitutional require-merits of equal protection. Nor is such a construction consistent with the statutory dictates of DRL ■§ 240 which requires that support be determined “having regard [for] the circumstances ... of the respective parties” and “out of the property of either or both of its parents.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Abraham & Straus v. Francis (In Re Francis)