Supreme Court of South Carolina· 9/5/1989
Miller v. Miller
Citations
- 384 S.E.2d 715
- 299 S.C. 307
- 1989 S.C. LEXIS 175
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reviewing the denial of a petition to decrease child support set by the divorce decree using the modification standard of changed circumstances
- holding a reduction in child support cannot be based on a decrease in the noncustodial parents income absent a strong showing by the latter that he or she can no longer make the support payments required by the earlier order
- family court has the authority to modify the amount of child support upon a showing of substantial or material change of circumstances
- generally, changes in circumstances within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the initial decree do not provide a basis for modifying a child support award
- \A family court has authority to modify the amount of a child support award upon a showing of a substantial or material change of circumstances.\
- change in circumstances within contemplation of parties at time of initial order does not provide basis for modifying child support award
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Toal, Gregory, Harwell, Chandler, Finney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- E.D.M. v. T.A.M.Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1992-03-16· cited 274×
- Mallett v. MallettCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-05-28· cited 59×
- Upchurch v. UpchurchSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-01-03· cited 46×
- McElveen v. McElveenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1998-09-14· cited 39×
- Townsend v. TownsendCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2003-09-29· cited 29×
- Rogers v. RogersSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-01-08· cited 28×
- Chester County Department of Social Services v. ColemanSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-12-10· cited 22×
- Burch v. BurchSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2011-10-31· cited 20×
- Mr. T v. Ms. TCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2008-04-15· cited 15×
- Hudson v. HudsonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2000-04-24· cited 10×
- Floyd v. MorganSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2009-07-06· cited 8×
- LaFrance v. LaFranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2006-10-02· cited 6×
- Hawkins v. HawkinsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2013-04-17· cited 5×
- Rutherford v. RutherfordCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1991-02-05· cited 3×
- Tilghman v. TilghmanCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1993-06-01· cited 1×
- Edm v. TamSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1992-03-16
- Bauckman v. McLeodCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2019-12-11
- Scott v. ScottCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2018-01-17
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Mitchell v. MitchellSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1984-08-27· cited 54×
- Calvert v. CalvertCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1985-11-14· cited 38×
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1980-12-08· cited 20×
- Moss v. Aetna Life InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1976-09-09· cited 18×
- Nelson v. MerrittCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1984-03-05· cited 17×
- Masters v. Rodgers Development Group, S. C., Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1984-09-26· cited 16×
- Garris v. CookSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1983-02-17· cited 14×
- Clinkscales v. ClinkscalesSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1980-09-15· cited 12×
- Thornton v. ThorntonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1988-02-29· cited 7×
- Hill v. EdwardsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1974-05-09· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.