Lanctot v. Lanctot’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If the plaintiff still resided in and had the custody of their minor child in some county of this state other than Pierce county, it may be conceded for present purposes that the defendant would be required to seek relief in the superior court of the county of the residence of the plaintiff. But we cannot bring ourselves to believe that the legislature ever intended that the continuing jurisdiction over such an incidental controversy to the divorce decree as is here involved should be taken away from the superior court granting a divorce decree by this act of 1921, when the party asking relief still retains his residence in the state and the other party has left the state and taken their child from the state.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 24 Wash. 2d 194 - State Ex Rel. Jiminez v. Superior Court · 51 Wash. 2d 652 - White v. White

2. ““As to the question of the jurisdiction of the superior court for Pierce county over the subject-matter of the defendant’s application, apparently the trial judge and counsel for the plaintiff proceeded upon the assumption that the jurisdiction of that court could not be invoked as asked for by the defendant because of the provisions of the following sections, Rem. Comp. Stat., enacted by the legislature in 1921, reading as follows: . .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 24 Wash. 2d 194 - State Ex Rel. Jiminez v. Superior Court · 51 Wash. 2d 652 - White v. White

3. ““It is the settled law of this state that the jurisdiction of the court rendering the decree of divorce is continuing as to the custody of children of the parties and as to awarding periodical allowance in favor of one party as against the other. [Citing cases.] “It is possible that the nature of the interrelated jurisdiction of the several superior courts of this state, under our constitution, is such that the legislature has the power to require a controversy of this nature to be brought and determined in the superior court of the county of the residence of the party moved against, or in the superior court of the county where the child resides; but even if that be so, it seems to us that this statute was, after all, intended to he simply a changing of the place of trial of questions of this nature, still recognizing that such questions are to be determined in the divorce action; that is, in the exercise of the continuing jurisdiction in that action. This is plainly evidenced by the provisions of § ‘995-3, Rem. Comp. Stat. . . . above quoted. . . .We are of the opinion that the superior court of Pierce county, under the conditions here shown, had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the defendant’s application.” (Italics ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 24 Wash. 2d 194 - State Ex Rel. Jiminez v. Superior Court