Dyas v. Dyas’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably TenEyck v. TenEyck (2003), 941 So. 2d 279 - Schiesz v. Schiesz (2006)
33 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 634 So. 2d 571 - Posey v. Posey · 617 So. 2d 694 - Anonymous v. Anonymous · 648 So. 2d 605 - Coleman v. Coleman · 628 So. 2d 883 - St. John v. St. John · Makar v. Makar
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]here the combined adjusted gross income exceeds the uppermost limit of the schedule, the amount of child support should not be extrapolated from the figures given in the schedule, but should be left to the discretion of the court.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] trial court's discretion is not unbridled and . . . the amount of child support awarded must relate to the reasonable and necessary needs of the children as well as to the ability of the obligor to pay for those needs.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““This court has held ... that a trial court’s discretion [in determining child support in circumstances where combined adjusted gross income exceeds the uppermost levels of the child-support schedule] is not unbridled and that the amount of child support awarded must relate to the reasonable and necessary needs of the children as well as to the ability of the obligor to pay for those needs.... [[Image here]] “When the combined adjusted gross income exceeds the uppermost limit of the child support schedule, the amount of child support awarded must rationally relate to the reasonable and necessary needs of the child, taking into account the lifestyle to which the child was accustomed and the standard of living the child enjoyed before the divorce, and must reasonably relate to the obligor’s ability to pay for those needs.... To avoid a finding of an abuse of discretion on appeal, a trial court’s judgment of child support must satisfy both prongs. “In this case, the amount awarded totally fails on the first prong; it is abundantly clear from the record that the child support awarded was based solely on the husband’s perceived ability to pay and does not rationally relate to the reasonable and necessary needs of the two minor children. This is contrary to established case law; consequently, we find an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.