United States v. Grigsby’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 228 (Child Support Recovery Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 4285 · 5 U.S.C. § 5702
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Buckley v. Valeo · Morissette v. United States · Sandstrom v. Montana · Leary v. United States
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is readily apparent that the issuance of a support order by a Court does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the parent involved will have the ability to pay that obligation over the next two years. In many eases, the parent is not even before the Court to contest the order and his or her ability to make the payments is thus the result of an ex parte proceeding with little or no evidence presented on the issue. Therefore, in the run of cases, it is unreasonable to conclude that a parent has the ability to pay solely based on the issuance of a court order and to command a jury to make that inference is arbitrary.”
2 later decisions 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.