Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 1981 · most notably McNeal v. Mahoney (1977), Smart v. Cantor (1977)
28 state decisions
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 Finlay v. Finlay · 49 Cal. App. 2d 581 - Washburn v. Washburn · Wicks v. Cox · White v. White · Griffin v. Griffin
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . The rule we have adopted will, as a whole, tend to discourage kidnapping, as well as contempt for the lawful decrees of a court of a sister state. An opposite rule, as contended for by defendant, would not only place the stamp of approval upon kidnapping and contempt, but would make this state a mecca for all persons seeking to evade the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of their original domicile. It would amount to a tacit admission, at least, that our own decrees in similar situations are of no effect beyond our boundary lines.” 105 Ariz. at 241 , 462 P.2d at 790 , quoting Ex Parte Lorenz, 194 Or. 355 , 241 P.2d 142 (1952).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * * ‘A state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction to determine the custody of children or to create the status of guardian of the person only if the domicil of the person placed under custody or guardianship is within the state.’ (Emphasis supplied.) See also Griffin v. Griffin, 95 Or. 78 , 187 P. 598 ; and Duryea v. Duryea, 46 Idaho 512 , 269 P. 987 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Plumb v. Plumb · Brown v. Brown““The courts of the state of domicile are in a much better position to inquire into a change of circumstances surrounding children, and, under the doctrine of parens patriae, they have the primary obligation to care for the general welfare of their own citizens.” 105 Ariz. at 238 , 462 P.2d at 787 .”
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.