Pousson v. Pousson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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.

1. “A. Income of the child that can be used to reduce the basic needs of the child may be considered as a deduction from the basic child support obligation. B. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to income earned by a child while a full-time student, regardless of whether such income was earned during a summer or holiday break. C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to benefits received by a child from public assistance programs, including but not limited to Family Independence Temporary Assistance Programs (FITAP), food stamps, or any means-tested program.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Camacho v. Camacho · 928 So. 2d 1 - Salles v. Salles

2. ““After reviewing the jurisprudence and legislative history, the court in its discretion declines to reduce the child support obligation by the social security disability benefits received by Jonathan. The child receives the benefits due to an injury to Therese, the obligee. The benefits are provided to meet Jonathan’s needs due to Therese’s inability to work and provide. They arise from monies paid by Therese and her employer. The Court does not believe that John should be allowed to reduce his child support obligation by income Jonathan receives from social security because his mother is disabled and no longer able to work.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Torres Rodríguez v. Carrasquillo Nieves

3. “Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315.1 clearly states that the court may deviate from the child support guidelines set forth in Sections 9:315 et. seq. Upon a finding that the application of the guidelines would not be in the best interest of the children, or would be inequitable to the parties, the trial court may deviate from those guidelines. La.R.S. 9:315.1(B). The court must provide written reasons for the deviation, which include a finding as to the amount of support that would have been required under a mechanical application of the guidelines.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 996 So. 2d 74 - Brossett v. Brossett