Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 712 So. 2d 822 - Thomas v. Thomas

712 So. 2d 822 - Thomas v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2017

11 state decisions

70199820002010decided

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 Barrow v. Barrow · Chastain v. Scandinavian Health Spas · 560 So. 2d 403 - Garcia v. Garcia · 693 So. 2d 1080 - Stock v. Stock · 559 So. 2d 737 - Berger v. Berger

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(2) Income shall be determined on a monthly basis for the obligor and for the obligee as follows: (a) Gross income shall include, but is not limited to, the following items: * * * (13) Reimbursed expenses or in kind payments to the extent that they reduce living expenses.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Here, but for the terms of the final judgment, Mrs. Thomas could not have occupied the home to the exclusion of Mr. Thomas without either paying him half the property's fair rental value or incurring his offset in that amount against his share of the property expenses. Clearly, then, Mrs. Thomas's living expenses were reduced by that sum, and the statute mandated its inclusion in her gross income.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]hen an owner's possession of the property is an aspect of court-ordered support, the nonresident may not claim rent, even though the resident owner has been granted the exclusive right to occupy the property, and even though the nonresident has been directed to pay his or her share of the property expenses. See Berger v. Berger, 559 So.2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)”
    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.