Roush v. Roush’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) The withholding from an obligor’s income of amounts payable as spousal or child support shall be enforced by the child support enforcement division in accordance with the provisions of section fifteen-a or fifteen-b [§ 48-2-15a or § 48-2-15b], article two, chapter forty-eight of this code. Every support order heretofore or hereafter entered by a circuit court or a magistrate of this state and every support order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction of another state shall be considered to provide for an order of income withholding in accordance with the provisions of said sections, notwithstanding the fact that such support order does not in fact provide for such an order of withholding. A withholding may be instituted under this section for any arrearage without the necessity of additional judicial or legal action. (b) When immediate income withholding is not required due to the findings required by subsection (c), section fifteen-b [§ 48-2-15b(c)], article two, chapter forty-eight of this code, the child support enforcement division shall mail a notice to the obligor pursuant to this section when the support payments required by the order are in arrears in an amount equal to: (1) One month’s support, if the order requires support to be paid in monthly installments; (2) Four weeks’ support, if the order requires support to be paid in weekly or biweekly installments; or (3) Two biweekly installments, if biweekly payments are provided. (c) When withholding is requir”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 208 W. Va. 310 - Settle v. Settle

2. “) heard the case. On January 27, 1988, the circuit court entered a final divorce decree which established alimony payments of $400.00/month and child support payments of $150.00/month for each of the two children. At a subsequent hearing, the FLM found that Mr. Roush was in arrears in the amount of $880.00. 3 In late March 1988, Betty Wickline of the Child Advocate Office of the Department of Human Services (”

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

3. “Simply alleging that the state has violated a statute does not, in and of itself, suffice to allege a federal constitutional deprivation. Section 1983 was intended to vindicate only federal rights determined under federal ... law, not claims arising under state law. Weller v. Dept. of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir.1990) (violations of state law do not provide basis for due process claim).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roush v. Justice