595 So. 2d 810 - Crowder v. Crowder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A. An award for support shall not be reduced or increased unless the party seeking the reduction or increase shows a change in circumstances of one of the parties between the time of the previous award and the time of the motion for modification of the award.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Reed · 642 So. 2d 885 - Megison v. Megison

2. “In order to warrant modification of a child support award, the petitioning party logically must show that circumstances have substantially shifted in a positive or negative direction consistent with the adjustment sought. For example, a parent seeking an increase in payments should be required to demonstrate an improvement in the payor's financial condition, a worsening in the payee's financial condition, or greater needs by the minor. Any other approach would defy reason and produce absurd results. (citations omitted).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barto v. Barto · 687 So. 2d 655 - Green v. Scott

3. “We do not identify that result as a likely goal of our legislature.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 604 So. 2d 107 - Norris v. Norris