Nash v. Mulle’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2018
24 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2 · 42 U.S.C. § 651 (§ 451 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 667 (§ 467 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on 89 Wash. 2d 592 - Childers v. Childers · Esteb v. Esteb · 271 Pa. Super. 314 - Brake v. Brake · 90 Ill. App. 3d 941 - Greiman v. Friedman · 24 Ill. App. 2d 32 - Maitzen v. Maitzen
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court must order child support based upon the appropriate percentage of all net income of the obligor as defined according to 1240-2-4-,03 of this rule but alternative payment arrangements may be made for the award from that portion of net income which exceeds $6,250. When the net income of the obligor exceeds $6,250 per month, the court may establish educational or other trust funds for the benefit of the child(ren) or make other provisions in the child(ren)’s best interest; however, all of the support award amount based on net income up through $6,250 must be paid to the custodial parent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jahn v. Jahn · Corder v. Corder“[t]he trial court should retain the discretion to determine — as the Guidelines provide, “on a case-by-case basis” — the appropriate amount of child support to be paid when an obligor’s net income exceeds $6,250.00 per month, balancing both the child’s needs and the parent’s means. The guidelines very latitude reflects this need for an exercise of discretion. Twenty-one percent of an enormous monthly income may provide far more money than most reasonable, wealthy parents would allot for the support of one child. However, it would also be unfair to require a custodial parent to prove a specific need before the court will increase an award beyond $1,312.00 ... Until the guidelines more specifically address support awards for the children of high-income parents, we are content to rely on the judgment of the trial courts within the bounds provided by those guidelines.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Smith“It reminds us that Tennessee does not define a child’s need literally, but rather requires an award to reflect both parents’ financial circumstances. This goal is consistent with our long established common law rule, which requires that a parent must provide support “in a manner commensurate with his means and station in life.” ... Long-standing Tennessee law requires the courts to evaluate children’s needs not in terms of life’s essentials, but in terms of the parents’ “means and station in life.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bryan v. Leach
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.