719 So. 2d 228 - Brown v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably 869 So. 2d 486 - Fell v. Fell (2003), Nichols v. Nichols (2001)
48 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 486 So. 2d 408 - Hall v. Mazzone · 514 So. 2d 877 - Gaston v. Ames · Golden v. Golden · State Ex Rel. Shellhouse v. Bentley · Ex Parte University of South Alabama
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[G]iven this state's policy and law requiring a parent to support a minor child, we hold that a trial court may, in its discretion, award child support retroactive to the filing of the complaint for divorce where the trial court has failed to enter a pendente lite child support order for the period in which the parent had a duty to support the child but failed to provide that support.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Pyw v. Guw · T.L.H. v. R.A.R.“"(a) The actual cost of a premium to provide health insurance benefits for the children shall be added to the `basic child support obligation' and shall be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross income in the percentages indicated on the Child Support Guidelines form (Form CS-42). "(b) The amount to be added to the `basic child support obligation' shall be the actual amount of the total insurance premium for family/dependent coverage , regardless of whether all children covered are in the same family. "(c) After the `total child support obligation' is calculated and divided between the parents in proportion to their `monthly adjusted gross income,' the amount added pursuant to subsection (b) *Page 888 shall be deducted from the obligor's share of the total child support obligation, provided the obligor actually pays said premium. If the obligee is actually paying the premium, no further adjustment is necessary."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In cases that involve an award of post-minority support for a college education, this court has held that the award of such support will be retroactive to the date of the filing of the petition for the support. Thompson v. Thompson , 689 So.2d 885 (Ala.Civ.App. 1997) (citing Bayliss v. Bayliss , 575 So.2d 1117 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990)). In Thompson , this court quoted a Pennsylvania court and concluded that: `There is a sound policy favoring retroactivity in most cases, because the party entitled to support should not be penalized for having to resort to time-consuming court proceedings.' 689 So.2d at 889 (citation omitted)."”
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.