Hoodenpyl v. Reason

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[t]he mere fact of additional children . . . will not justify a reduction in the guideline range”
• “[t]he mere fact of additional children . . . will not justify a reduction in the guideline range”
• when determining whether certain facts constituted special circumstances that justified a change in the presumptive amount of support, the essential question was whether those facts rendered the presumptive amount excessive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Georgia Department of Human Resources v. Prater
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 2006-04-14· cited 12×
• Sharpe v. Perkins
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 2007-03-20· cited 10×
• Jackson v. Irvin
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 2012-07-03· cited 7×
• Betty v. Betty
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 2001-09-17· cited 4×
• Weil v. Paseka
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 2006-11-15· cited 2×
• Eleazer v. Eleazer
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 2004-05-03· cited 1×
• Nichelle Jackson v. Corvey Irvin
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 2012-07-03

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Ehlers v. Ehlers
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1994-11-28· cited 16×
• Arrington v. Arrington
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1991-09-06· cited 11×