92 N.C. App. 359 - Morris v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
February 2009
most recently cited
21 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 81 N.C. App. 71 - Boyd v. Boyd · 91 N.C. App. 118 - Holderness v. Holderness
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Effective October 1, 1989, and pursuant to G.S. 50-13.4(c), the advisory child support guidelines for the computation of child support obligations of each parent as adopted by the Conference of Chief District Judges shall operate as presumptive guidelines. That is, the percentages set out in Section A shall be applied in computing child support obligations, unless the Court makes findings to vary the amount based on the factors set out in Section B. The child support guidelines and factors for varying from the guidelines as adopted by the Conference of Chief District Judges are as follows: A. A parent’s support obligation for that parent’s child or children shall be computed as follows: One child . 17% of the parent’s gross income Two children . 25% of the parent’s gross income Three children ... 29% of the parent’s gross income Four children .... 31% of the parent’s gross income Five or more children . 34% of the parent’s gross income B. The amount of a parent’s support obligation may vary from the amount as computed above based on one or more of the following factors: (1) The special needs of the child, including physical and emotional health needs, educational needs, day-care costs, or needs related to the child’s age. (2) Any shared physical custody arrangements or extended or unusual visitation arrangements. (3) A party’s other support obligations to a current or former household, including the payment of alimony. (4) A party’s extremely low or extremely high income, suc”
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.