827 So. 2d 42 - Nelson v. Halley’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2020
12 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 735 So. 2d 1002 - Esco v. Scott · 760 So. 2d 732 - Thrift v. Thrift · 755 So. 2d 33 - Rodgers v. Taylor · In Re Custody of Jackson
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) ... upon petition, a tribunal of this state may modify a child support order issued in another state which is registered in this state, if, after notice and hearing, it finds that: [[Image here]] (b) This state is the state of residence of the child, or a party who is an individual is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of this state, and all of the parties who are individuals have filed consents in a record in the issuing tribunal for a tribunal of this state to modify the support order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[o]nce both parents and the child have left the original state, the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of that state's tribunal may well have terminated, but its order remains in effect and enforceable until it is modified by another tribunal with authority to do so.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) If Section 93-25-107 1 does not apply, except as otherwise provided in Section 93-25-108, 2 upon petition, a tribunal of this state may modify a child support order issued in another state which is registered in this state, if, after notice and hearing, it finds that: (a) The following requirements are met: (i) Neither the child, nor the obli-gee who is an individual, nor the obligor resides in the issuing state; (ii) A petitioner who is a nonresident of this state seeks modification; and (iii) The respondent is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of this state; or (b) This state is the state of residence of the child, or a party who is an individual is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of this state, and all of the parties who are individuals have filed consents in a record in the issuing tribunal for a tribunal of this state to modify the support order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. (2) Modification of a registered child support order is subject to the same requirements, procedures and defenses that apply to the modification of an order issued by a tribunal of this state and the order may be enforced and satisfied in the same manner. (3) Except as otherwise provided in Section 93-25-108, a tribunal of this state may not modify any aspect of a child support order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing state, including the duration of the order of support. If two (2) or more tribunals have issued child sup”
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.