Poh v. Poh’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. ““The issue whether to hold a party in contempt is solely within the discretion of the trial court, and a trial court’s contempt determination will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing that the trial court acted outside its discretion or that its judgment is not supported by the evidence. Brown v. Brown, 960 So.2d 712, 716 (Ala.Civ.App.2006) (affirming a trial court’s decision not to hold a parent in contempt for failure to pay child support when the parent testified that he had deducted from his monthly child-support payment the amount he had expended to buy clothes for the children).””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morgan v. Moss · Jesse Stutts, Inc. v. Hughey

2. “"our jurisprudence holds that each domestic-relations case is factually unique, especially with regard to a noncustodial parent's ability to pay child support to the other parent because the financial status of parties varies widely from case to case (as do the needs of their respective children). "For that reason, this court has, on numerous occasions, stated that " '[c]hild support is always subject to modification based upon changed circumstances and a parent's ability to pay.' " Lo Porto v. Lo Porto , 717 So.2d 418 , 421 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) (quoting Gordy v. Glance , 636 So.2d 459 , 461 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994) ) (emphasis added) (holding that clear error occurred when a trial court awarded a custodial parent real property as an advancement of the noncustodial parent's child-support obligation for two years after the divorce because the judgment did not practically permit the obligation to be modified during that two-year period); Gordy , 636 So.2d at 461 (noting that child support is always subject to modification based on changes in circumstances such as a parent's ability to pay; consequently, a custodial parent may be entitled to an increase in support in the future, if warranted); and Cole v. Cole , 540 So.2d 73 , 75 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989) (rejecting a trial court's judgment that 'would have prevented any further modification of child support for any reason, regardless of how radically such circumstances or needs might be altered by future events')."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Humber v. Humber

3. “is not at liberty to ignore the undisputed evidence concerning a parent's ability to pay.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 260 So. 3d 45 - Tolbert v. Tolbert