Hayes v. Hayes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' "[t]his court has held that if the record does not reflect compliance with Rule 32(E) ... (which requires the filing of 'Child Support Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit' forms (Forms CS-41) and a 'Child Support Guidelines' form (Form CS-42)), and if child support is made an issue on appeal, this court will remand (or reverse and remand) for compliance with the rule. See Martin v. Martin , 637 So.2d 901 , 903 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). On the other hand, this court has affirmed child-support awards when, despite the absence of the required forms, we could discern from the appellate record what figures the trial court used in computing the child-support obligation. See , e.g. , Dunn v. Dunn , 891 So.2d 891 , 896 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) ; Rimpf v. Campbell , 853 So.2d 957 , 959 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) ; and Dismukes v. Dorsey , 686 So.2d 298 , 301 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). Nevertheless, without the child-support-guidelines forms, it is sometimes impossible for an appellate court to determine from the record whether the trial court correctly applied the guidelines in establishing or modifying a child-support obligation. See Horwitz v. Horwitz , 739 So.2d 1118 , 1120 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wellborn v. Wellborn · Suggs v. Suggs

2. “[T]he determination of a child-support arrearage is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent a showing of an abuse of discretion the trial court's judgment will not be reversed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 998 So. 2d 1072 - Hall v. Hall