Camacho v. Camacho’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 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. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection C of this Section, social security benefits received by a child due to the earnings of a parent shall be credited as child support to the parent upon whose earning record it is based, by crediting the amount against the potential obligation of that parent. E.In cases where there is a child support arrearage, the court shall grant an evidentiary hearing before any arrearage is reduced based upon any lump sum payments received by the child.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 87 So. 3d 1014 - State v. Jones

2. “the legislation [the 2006 amendment to La. R.S. 9:315.7] is substantive and makes no provision for retroactive application.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 962 So. 2d 1234 - Leonard v. Richard