Brooks v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Hill v. Hill (2001), Cohen v. Cohen (2002)
30 state decisions
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 Nelson v. Nelson · Brueggemann v. Brueggemann · Cates v. Cates · McCreary v. McCreary · Schroeder v. Schroeder
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to him, and his ability to meet his needs independently, including the extent to which a provision for support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party as custodian; (2) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment; (3) The comparative earning capacity of each spouse; (4) The standard of living established during the marriage; (5) The obligations and assets, including the marital property apportioned to him and the separate property of each party; (6) The duration of the marriage; (7) The age, and the physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance; (8) The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance; (9) The conduct of the parties during the marriage; and (10) Any other relevant factors.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n determining whether or not a substantial change in circumstances has occurred, [the court] shall consider all financial resources of both parties[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. $75.00 3 for medical and dental care and prescription drugs for the minor children. Husband argues the decree already ordered him to pay, in addition to his monthly child support payment, one-half of all uninsured health care costs, resulting in an overstatement of $37.50. 2. $22.00 for contact lens supplies for the minor son. Husband argues the decree already ordered him to pay, in addition to his monthly child support payment, one-half of this expense, resulting in an overstatement of $11.00. 3. $20.80 4 for life insurance for the children. Husband argues this is not an allowable expense under the law. 4. $132.00 for automobile insurance. Husband argues Wife testified the minor son paid this expense himself and, therefore, it is not an allowable expense under the law. Wife also testified the son pays his own insurance when he works but she pays it otherwise. 5. $100.00 for installment debt. Husband argues Wife has only $1,029.00 worth of installment debt remaining and at $100.00 per month, she would be debt-free in ten months. 6. $18.00 for Wife’s health insurance, 5 as claimed by Wife in her income and expense statement. Wife testified she was not actually paying this amount but that the insurance was available to her at that, amount. Since she was not paying it, Husband argues it is not an allowable expense. 7. $45.00 for dental care for Wife and children. Husband argues Wife testified she is not actually spending this amount and does not know how much she is spending.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Childers v. Childers
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.