116 Ind. App. 534 - Crowe v. Crowe’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1988
10 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 Morrill v. Morrill · Hersey v. Hersey · Duckworth v. Duckworth · Butler v. Butler · Zirkle v. Zirkle
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the well-settled rule of this jurisdiction that in controversies of this nature the right of the father to the custody of his child is always subject to the paramount consideration of the welfare and best interests of the child. Johnson et al. v. Smith et al. (1932), 203 Ind. 214 , 176 N. E. 705 ; Duckworth v. Duckworth et al. (1932), 203 Ind. 276 , 179 N. E. 773 . The reason for this rule is based upon the premise that children are not chattels but intelligent moral beings, and as such their welfare and happiness are the first consideration of the State. 17 Am. Jur. (Divorce and Separation), §683, p. 517. “So far as we have been able to ascertain the question of whether a court of this state in a divorce proceeding has the authority to place the custody of children of the divorced parents with the mother who resides out of the state and charge the father with their support, has not been passed upon either by this court or the Supreme Court. The rule, that the welfare and best interests of the child is of paramount importance, is not limited by state lines, according to the weight of authority of other jurisdictions. (With cases cited). “We are in accord with this view. We believe it is based on humane considerations for the benefit of the innocent victims of families disrupted by divorce. “The question here presented is one involving sound judicial discretion rather than some hard and fast rule of law. Weber v. Redding et al. (1929), 200 Ind. 448 , 163 N. E. 269 . In ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“husband to pay the attorney appearing for the wife ... a reasonable fee to be fixed by the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“fair and equitable under the circumstances and evidence.”
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.