Broyles v. Broyles’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Jones v. Jones (1993), Goss v. Goss (1989)
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 United States v. American Ry Express Co Southeastern Express Co · Mentock v. Mentock · 8 Cal. App. 3d 636 - Williams v. Williams · Kvenild v. Taylor · True v. Hi-Plains Elevator MacHinery, Inc.
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.
“In every action brought for divorce, the court may require either party to pay any sum necessary to enable the other to carry on or defend the action and for support and the support of the children of the parties during its pendency. The court may decree costs against either party and award execution for the costs, or it may direct costs to be paid out of any property sequestered, in the power of the court, or in the hands of a receiver. The court may also direct payment to either party for such purpose of any sum due and owing from any person.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Child support payments are court-imposed obligations based on the parent's ability to pay and [are] designed to meet the needs of the children....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The controlling rule has been settled for many years. In United States v. American Railway Express Co., 1924, 265 U.S. 425, 435 , 44 S.Ct. 560, 564 , 68 L.Ed. 1087, 1093 , it was said: "*... [A] party who does not appeal from a final decree of the trial court cannot be heard in opposition thereto when the case is brought here by the appeal of the adverse party. In other words, the appellee may not attack the decree with a view either to enlarging his own rights thereunder or of lessening the rights of his adversary, whether what he seeks is to correct an error or to supplement the decree with respect to a matter not dealt with below. .. .' "In summary, a non-appealing party may not attack the ultimate effect of the judgment below but may support it by any matter appearing in the record. The rejection of a contention, argument or theory in support of a claim does not reject the final upholding of the claim itself."”
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.