Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 88 Ark. App. 67 - Johnson v. Cotton-Johnson

88 Ark. App. 67 - Johnson v. Cotton-Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 2010 Ark. App. 137 - Gilliam v. Gilliam (2010), 2009 Ark. App. 577 - Rudder v. Hurst (2009)

32 state decisions

160200420102020decided

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 82 Ark. App. 294 - Williams v. Williams · 82 Ark. App. 47 - Cole v. Cole · Longinotti v. Longinotti · 27 Ark. App. 250 - Hodges v. Hodges · 85 Ark. App. 419 - Delacey v. Delacey

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

  1. “In determining a reasonable amount of support, initially or upon review to be paid by the noncustodial parent, the court shall refer to the most recent revision of the family support chart. It shall be a rebuttable presumption for the award of child support that the amount contained in the family support chart is the correct amount of child support to be awarded. Only upon a written finding or specific finding on the record that the application of the support chart would be unjust or inappropriate, as determined under established criteria set forth in the family support chart, shall the presumption be rebutted.”
    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.