Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 29 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Mencer v. Ruch.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mencer v. Ruch Anchor | green | “the starting point for calculation of a parent's child support obligation is a determination of each party's income available for support.” | 5 |
| 2 | Moranko, F. v. Downs Racing | green | “it is well settled that a failure to argue and to cite any authority supporting any argument constitutes a waiver of issues on appeal.” | 5 |
| 3 | Franciscus, J. v. Sevdik, T. | green | “as a substitute for the proper presentation of arguments in the body of the appellate brief” | 5 |
| 4 | Habjan v. Habjan | green | “the burden of proof rests with the complaining party to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant is in noncompliance with a court order.” | 5 |
| 5 | Mencer v. Ruch | green | “the assessment of the full measure of a parent's income for the purposes of child support requires courts to determine ability to pay from all financial resources” | 3 |
| 6 | Suzanne D. v. Stephen W. | green | “because a gift is given not in exchange for services, it does not meet the statutory definition of income.” | 3 |
| 7 | Suzanne D. v. Stephen W. | green | “monetary gifts from family members are a common practice, and would not have been unknown to the drafters of the statute. had the general assembly wished to include gifts as income for support, it would have done so.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.