Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 100 Cal. App. 2d 60 - Shea v. Shea

100 Cal. App. 2d 60 - Shea v. Shea’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
states following
April 1996
most recently cited

43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently April 1996 · most notably In Re Marriage of Burgess (1996), 39 Cal. 2d 272 - Gantner v. Gantner (1952)

43 state decisions

17019501960197019801990decided

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 Roche v. Roche · Stever v. Stever · 35 Cal. 2d 259 - Clarke v. Clarke · Taber v. Taber · In re White

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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In Luck v. Luck, 92 Cal. 653, 655 [ 28 P. 787 ], our Supreme Court states the rule thus: ‘. . . if he [the father] is entitled to the custody of the children at all, he has the right to name any reasonable place in which they shall abide with him. . . .’ “Applying the foregoing rule to the facts of the present case, since the trial court found that plaintiff was a fit and proper person to have the custody of his minor child and there was no finding that the child’s rights or welfare would be prejudiced by his removal from Los Angeles County, the court’s order in restraining plaintiff from removing his son from Los Angeles was erroneous.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “... The presumption stressed by the courts that the best interests of the child in respect to its temporal, mental and moral welfare always can be subserved by giving its custody to a parent whom the court cannot or does not wish to declare unfit, is a fallacy, but one which, having been defined by the Supreme Court, we, as an intermediate court, are compelled to continue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.