Lide v. Lide’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) In determining whether to appoint a party as a sole or joint managing conservator, the court shall consider evidence of the intentional use of abusive physical force by a party against the party’s spouse, a parent of the child, or any person younger than 18 years of age committed within a two-year period preceding the filing of the suit or during the pendency of the suit. (b) The court may not appoint joint managing conservators if credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child.... It is a rebuttable presumption that the appointment of a parent as the sole managing conservator of a child or as the conservator who has the exclusive right to determine the primary residence of a child is not in the best interest of the child if credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by that parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. [[Image here]] (d) The court may not allow a parent to have access to a child for whom it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a history or pattern of committing family violence during the two years preceding the date of the filing of the suit or during the pendency of the suit, unless the court: (1) finds that awarding the parent access to the child would not endanger the child’s physical health or emotion ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hinkle v. Hinkle

2. “(1) the ages and needs of the children; (2) the ability of the parents to contribute to the support of the children; (3) any financial resources available for the support of the children; (4) the amount of time of possession of and access to the children; (5) the amount of the obligee’s net resources, including earning potential; (6) child care expenses necessary to enable either party to maintain gainful employment; (7) whether either party has the managing conservatorship or actual physical custody of another child; (8) the amount of alimony or spousal maintenance actually and currently being paid or received by a party; (9) expenses for a child for education beyond secondary school; (10) whether the obligor or obligee has an automobile, housing, or other benefits furnished by an employer, another person, or a business entity; (11) the amount of other deductions from wages, salary, or other compensation; (12) provision for health care insurance and payment of uninsured medical expenses; (13) special or extraordinary educational, health care, or other expenses of the parties or of the children; (14) the cost of travel in order to exercise possession of and access to the children; (15) positive or negative cash flow from any real and personal property and assets, including a business and investments; (16) debts or debt service assumed by either party; and (17) any other reason consistent with the best interest of the children, taking into consideration the circumstances of th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Niskar v. Niskar

3. “(1) whether the physical, psychological, or emotional needs and development of the children will benefit from the appointment of joint managing conservators; (2) the ability of the parents to give first priority to the welfare of the children and reach shared decisions in the children's best interest; (3) whether each parent can encourage and accept a positive relationship between the children and the other parent; (4) whether both parents participated in the rearing of the children before the filing of the suit; (5) the geographical proximity of the parents' residences; (6) if a given child is 12 years of age or older, the child's preference, if any, regarding the person to have the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child; and (7) any other relevant factor.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Turrubiartes v. Olvera