754 So. 2d 450 - Clark v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

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

1. “unmistakable, clear, plain, or indisputable.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. Jones · 771 So. 2d 341 - Heigle v. Heigle

2. “[W]hen a chancellor chooses not to follow the guidelines, this Court has enforced the statutory requirement that the chancellor make an on-the-record determination that the guidelines do not apply. In this case, Richard reported a gross income of $80,500 in 1996 and was ordered to pay a total of $600 per month in child support. Even if Richard’s reported gross income were not adjusted for taxes, etc., as provided for in the statute, the $600 award would exceed the statutory guidelines. That is, -the amount awarded- was approximately 23.61% of the gross income reported in Richard’s 1996 tax return. However, “this Court is charged with reviewing the entire record.” Anderson v. Anderson, 692 So.2d 65, 71 (Miss.1997). The chancellor found, based on expert testimony, and Richard’s own testimony, that Richard was hiding assets and income, in order to avoid financial responsibility to his children and his wife of 33 years. In fact, based solely on the testimony regarding the payment of Richard’s employees, it was evident that Richard made more than he said he did (or he could not have paid his workers). Thus, applying the statutory guidelines to Richard’s reported income would not be accurate, in this case. Furthermore, a deeper study of the record indicates that the chancellor was not intentionally deviating from the statutory guidelines. Rather, the chancellor was attempting to follow the statutory schedule for child support payments. Moreover, the $600 monthly award would be corr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burnham v. Burnham

3. “(a) Extraordinary medical, psychological, educational or dental expenses. (b) Independent income of the child. (c) The payment of both child support and spousal support to the obligee. (d) Seasonal variations in one or both parents' incomes or expenses. (e) The age of the child, taking into account the greater needs of older children. (f) Special needs that have traditionally been met within the family budget even though the fulfilling of those needs will cause the support to exceed the proposed guidelines. (g) The particular shared parental arrangement, such as where the noncustodial parent spends a great deal of time with the children thereby reducing the financial expenditures incurred by the custodial parent, or the refusal of the noncustodial parent to become involved in the activities of the child, or giving due consideration to the custodial parent's homemaking services. (h) Total available assets of the obligee, obligor and the child. (i) Any other adjustment which is needed to achieve an equitable result which may include, but not be limited to, a reasonable and necessary existing expense or debt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 831 So. 2d 1137 - Fancher v. Pell