Priscilla S. v. Albert B.’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 2000 · most notably 161 Wis. 2d 277 - In Interest of AEH (1991), Holt v. District Court for the Twentieth Judicial District, Ardmore, Carter County (1981)
31 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"61.1304 Purposes of act; construction of provisions. The general purposes of this act are to: "(1) Avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody which have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from state to state with harmful effects on their well-being. "(2) Promote cooperation with the courts of other states to the end that a custody decree is rendered in the state which can best decide the case in the interest of the child. "(3) Assure that litigation concerning the custody of a child takes place ordinarily in the state with which the child and his family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning his care, protection, training, and personal relationships is most readily available, and that courts of this state decline the exercise of jurisdiction when the child and his family have a closer connection with another state. "(4) Discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child. "(5) Deter abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody awards."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“reserved for extraordinary circumstances,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.