708 So. 2d 181 - Wearb v. Luks’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
April 2011
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Stewart v. Ramsay · Lamb v. Schmitt · Stack v. Stack · Willis v. Levesque · 86 N.C. App. 556 - Stephens v. Hamrick
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The purpose of a proceeding under URESA is 'to provide a simple, fair, and convenient method to compel parents who have an obligation of support, to comply with that obligation.' Allsup v. State ex rel. Salas , 648 So.2d 597 , 599 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994). An action for child support brought under URESA does not replace or modify an order of child support in a divorce action; it enforces a prior support obligation. State ex rel. Van Buren County Department of Social Services v. Dempsey , 600 So.2d 1019 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992); Willis *Page 732 v. Levesque , 402 So.2d 1003 (Ala.Civ.App. 1981). Any modifications to the divorce judgment and support obligations must be made by the circuit court with jurisdiction over the divorce judgment. State ex rel. Van Buren County Department of Social Services v. Dempsey , 600 So.2d at 1023 . 'The remedies provided in [URESA] are in addition to and not in substitution for any other remedies.' § 30-4-98, Ala. Code 1975."”
2 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.