82 N.C. App. 231 - Bottomley v. Bottomley’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2017
6 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 Coble v. Coble · Fuchs v. Fuchs · Beall v. Beall · 36 N.C. App. 601 - Steele v. Steele · 64 N.C. App. 125 - Newman v. Newman
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is settled that any separation agreement dealing with the custody and the support of the children of the parties cannot deprive the [trial] court of its inherent as well as statutory authority to protect the interests of and provide for the welfare of minors." While in the usual case the custodial parent obtains an increase in the agreed-upon support, this Court has upheld an order setting a lesser amount than that provided for by the applicable separation agreement. [This] Court stated: "The judgment in this case does not change plaintiff's contractual obligations under the separation agreement. The question before the [trial] court was what amount it would require in the exercise of its inherent and statutory authority to provide for the welfare of [the] minors." .... [W]hile the [trial] court could not relieve plaintiff-husband of any contractual obligation he assumed to support his child in excess of what the law would require-it could, "in the exercise of its inherent and statutory authority to provide for the welfare of minors," order payment of an amount either larger or smaller than that provided for in the agreement. That amount should be "a reasonable subsistence, to be determined by the trial [court] in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion from the evidence before [the trial court] . [Its] determination ... will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion ." The effect of such an order is not to deprive defendant-wife of her contractua”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is settled that any separation agreement dealing with the custody and the support of the children of the parties cannot deprive the [trial] court of its inherent as well as statutory authority to protect the interests of and provide for the welfare of minors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a reasonable subsistence, to be determined by the trial [court] in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion from the evidence before [the trial court] . [Its] determination ... will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion .”
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.