Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 689 SO2D 154 - Williams v. Braddy

Williams v. Braddy’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2018

21 state decisions

110199620002010decided

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 655 So. 2d 1060 - Scholl v. Parsons · Stack v. Stack · 671 So. 2d 714 - Rogers v. Sims · 628 So. 2d 804 - Simmons v. Ellis · 585 So. 2d 54 - Bobo v. Bobo

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. ““The amended rule simply provides that a 10% variation creates a rebuttable presumption, not that a parent may seek a modification only when that variation exists. We, therefore, conclude that a court may still modify a child support obligation in situations where there is not a 10% variation but there has been a material change in circumstances. The party seeking a modification in that situation, however, does not have the benefit of the rebuttable presumption.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]here shall be a rebuttable presumption that child support should be modified when the difference between the existing child support award and the amount determined by application of these guidelines varies more than ten percent.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"The modification of a prior decree based upon changed circumstances of the parties is largely within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will disturb the exercise of such discretion only when it is abused to the extent that the judgment is plainly and palpably wrong. When, as in this case, the decree fixing the amount of support is based on an agreement between the parties, the decree should not be modified except for clear and sufficient reasons and after thorough consideration and investigation."”
    1 later decision 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.