Horne v. Touhakis

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding there were insufficient findings to impute income when “the superior court (1) started with an hourly wage, (2) doubled that wage based on a determination that the parent was capable of earning more, and (3
• remanding where “lack of specific findings” precluded appellate review of imputed income determination in child support modification order
• noting lack of specific findings to support income imputation order and directing superior court to make findings on “the four factors enumerated in Rule 90.3(a)(4)
• noting lack of specific findings to support income imputation order and directing superior court to make findings on (\the four factors enumerated in Rule 90.3(a)(4))\
• remanding child support case because superior court’s imputed income findings for obligor were not sufficiently based on evidence and discussing other similar cases
• remanding for more detailed factual findings but noting that “the parties failed to provide evidence that would have allowed the superior court to make more detailed findings,” and that “[t]he parties bear responsibility for this dearth of evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).