Comerford v. Cherry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. ““The courts have always seen to it that the property of a testator was received by those whom the testator intended. The upbringing of minor children is a matter which concerns every thoughtful human being more vitally than the disposition of his worldly possessions when he has passed on. No person is in a position to know as well who should have the custody of children as the surviving parent. They are his flesh and blood. He has observed them throughout their lives. By daily contact he knows their temperaments and habits, and by observation he knows those who have evidenced the greatest interest in his children, and those whose moral and spiritual values are in his judgment conducive to the best interests of his children. A judge treads on sacred ground when he overrides the directions of the deceased with reference to the custody of his children.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Heym · In re Heym

2. “(1) The court may appoint any person who is qualified to act as guardian, whether related to the ward or not. (2) The court shall give consideration to the appointment of: (a) One of the next of kin of the incompetent who is a fit and proper person and qualified to act. (b) Any person designated as guardian in any will in which the incompetent is a beneficiary. (3) The court shall also: (a) Consider the wishes expressed by the incompetent as to who shall be appointed guardian, and (b) Give weight to the appointment of an individual, or corporation as described in s. 744.102(11), nominated by the incompetent prior to the filing of the petition for a finding of incompetency, if at the time of nomination: 1. The incompetent was 18 or more years of age and had sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice, and 2. The nomination is contained in a writing signed by him in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses present at the same time....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 396 So. 2d 1217 - Thorpe v. Larsen