Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 Ariz. 520 - Allison v. Ovens

Allison v. Ovens’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
March 1986
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 1986 · most notably O'Hair v. O'Hair (1973), Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A. (1982)

26 state decisions

160196719701980decided

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 Vosburg v. Vosburg · Gotthelf v. Fickett · Casebolt v. Casebolt · B.W.L. Sam v. State · Bailey v. Superior Court

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

  1. ““The precise question relating to supersedeas, which is presented to us on this review, is whether there is a logical reason for a distinction between two appeals, the one involving an ordinary change of custody of minor children (Bailey v. Superior Court, [ 97 Ariz. 293 , 399 P.2d 907 ,] supra), and the other case being an appeal involving specific findings and order of the trial court relating to the necessity of a temporary change of custody, pending any appeal, in order to safeguard the safety, welfare and care of the minor children.” Allison v. Ovens, 102 Ariz. 520, 522 , 433 P.2d 968, 970 (1967).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““That the facts of the instant case are squarely within Gotthelf, supra, there can be no doubt. Therefore, for a change to be made in the custody of the children pending appeals it would have, to be through juvenile proceedings or by application to this court for some proper order. This is the procedure this court has held to be proper and in the best interests of children during appeal.” Allison v. Ovens, supra, 102 Ariz. at 520 , 433 P.2d at 971 .”
    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.