Syragakis v. Syragakis’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably 109 Conn. App. 316 - Blum v. Blum (2008), 104 Conn. App. 482 - Weinstein v. Weinstein (2007)
34 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 Turner v. Turner · Prial v. Prial · Hryniewicz v. Wilson · Santoro v. Santoro · Marrocco v. Giardino
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“General Statutes § 46b-86 governs the modification of a child support order after the date of a dissolution judgment. . . . [A] child support order cannot be modified unless there is (1) a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of either party or (2) a showing that the final order for child support substantially deviates from the child support guidelines absent the requisite findings. . . . The party seeking modification bears the burden of showing the existence of a substantial change in the circumstances. . . . In these matters, as in other questions arising out of marital disputes, this court relies heavily on the exercise of sound discretion by the trial court. . . . "Both the substantial change of circumstances and the substantial deviation from child support guidelines provision establish the authority of the trial court to modify existing child support orders to respond to changed economic conditions. The first allows the court to modify a support order when the financial circumstances of the individual parties have changed, regardless of their prior contemplation of such changes. The second allows the court to modify child support orders that were once deemed appropriate but no longer seem equitable in the light of changed social or economic circumstances in the society as a whole. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[s]ection 46b-215a-3 [now § 46b-215a-5c ] of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies contains the deviation criteria ... [and] provides that in addition to making a specific finding that following the guideline[s] would be inequitable or inappropriate, the court must state the amount that would have been required under the guidelines and the deviation criteria relied on by the court to justify [the] deviation”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There shall be a rebuttable presumption that any deviation of less than fifteen per cent from the child support guidelines is not substantial and any deviation of fifteen per cent or more from the guidelines is substantial.”
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.