Grant v. Hager’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The marriage of [Mother] and [Father] was dissolved in April 2003. They were granted joint legal custody of their two children, with [Mother] receiving primary physical custody. [Father] was ordered to pay $108 per week in child support, consistent with the Indiana Child Support Guidelines [ (the Guidelines) ] promulgated by this [c]ourt for use by Indiana judges in making child-support determinations. In April 2005, [Father] filed a petition to modify child support. At a hearing on his petition, [Father] submitted a Child Support Obligation Worksheet prepared in accordance with the Guidelines. The worksheet was based on [Mother’s] annual earnings of $105,724 and [Father’s] annual earnings of $55,935. These figures showed combined total weekly adjusted income of $3,109, with [Mother] earning 65.4% and [Father] earning 34.6% of that amount. The calculations set forth in the Guidelines produced a total weekly child support obligation for both parents of $517.00. Based on their relative incomes under the Guidelines before any credits, [Mother] would be responsible for $338 (65.4%) and [Father] would be responsible for $179 (34.6%). Under the Guidelines, a Parenting Time Credit is authorized based upon the number of overnights a child or- children spend with the non-custodial parent. After the dissolution here, the children had spent approximately 156 overnights per year with [Father], which gave him 43% of the parenting time. [Father] also provided $55 per week in health insuran”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Grant v. Hager

2. “On transfer, our supreme court stated: Although we agree with the [c]ourt of [a]ppeals that the Guidelines do not authorize “the payment of child support from a custodial to a non[ ]custodial parent,” that does not automatically render the trial court’s resolution of this matter invalid. Ind. Child Support Rule 2 provides that: In any proceeding for the award of child support there shall be a rebutta-ble presumption that the amount of the award which would result from the application of the ... Guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be awarded. As such, there is a rebuttable presumption that neither party owes the other support under their respective current incomes and their shared parenting time arrangement. However, Child Supp. R. 3 provides: If the court concludes from the evidence in a particular case that the amount of the award reached through application of the guidelines would be unjust, the court shall enter a written finding articulating the factual circumstances supporting that conclusion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Grant v. Hager

3. “[A] court could order a custodial parent to pay child support to a noncustodial parent based on their respective incomes and parenting time arrangements if the court had concluded that it would be unjust not to do so and the court had made the written finding mandated by Child. SuppR.3.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Grant v. Hager