140 So. 3d 208 - Hanks v. Hanks’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco · 708 So. 2d 731 - Evans v. Lungrin · 492 So. 2d 1193 - Bergeron v. Bergeron · Thompson v. Thompson · 822 So. 2d 770 - Stephens v. Stephens
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.
“• Appellate courts will not disturb a trial court’s custody award absent a manifest abuse of discretion. • “[E]ach child custody case must be viewed in light of its own particular set of facts and circumstances, with the paramount goal of reaching a decision that is in the best interest of the child.” • In determining the best interest of the child, “[e]ach case must be viewed in light of the child’s age, the situation of the parents, and any other factor relevant to the particular case.” • To aid courts in making this factual determination, La. C.C. art. 134 enumerates twelve factors for the court to consider. These factors have been construed to be nonexclusive, and the trial court has the discretion to determine the relative amount of weight to be given each factor. The court is not required to analyze mechanically all of the dozen factors; rather the court should balance and weigh the factors in view of the evidence presented. • The best interest of the child standard — codified in La. C.C. arts. 131 and 134 — is “a fact-intensive inquiry requiring the weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in the competing parties on the basis of the evidence presented in each case.” • “Because the trial judge is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court absent a cle”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Uln child custody cases, the following principles are well-settled: • Appellate courts will not disturb a trial court’s custody award absent a manifest abuse of discretion. • In most child custody casés, the trial court’s rulings are based heavily on its factual findings. “[A] court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of ‘manifest error’ or unless it is ‘clearly wrong.’ ” • “[E]ach child custody case must be viewed in light of its own particular set of facts and circumstances, with the paramount goal of reaching a decision that is in the best interest of the child.” • In determining the best interest of the child, “[e]ach case must be viewed in light of the child’s age, the situation of the parents, and any other factor relevant to the particular case,” • To aid courts in making this factual determination, La. C.C. art. 134 enumerates twelve factors for the court to consider. ... • The best interest of the child standard—codified in La. C.C. arts. 131 and 134—is “a fact-intensive inquiry requiring the weighing and balancing of factors favoring or opposing custody in the competing parties on the basis of the evidence presented in each case.” •' .“Because the trial judge is in the , best position to ascertain the best interest of the child based on the particular circumstances of the particular case, the trial court’s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed by an appellate court .absent a cle”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) the love, affection, and other emotional ties between each- party and the child; (2) the capacity and disposition of each party to give the child love, affection, and spiritual guidance' and to continue the education and rearing of the child; (3) the capacity and dispositionof each party to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, and other material needs; (4) the length of time the child has lived in a stable, adequate environment and the desirability of main taining continuity of that environment; (5) the permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes; (6) the moral fitness of each party, insofar as it affects the welfare of the child; (7) the mental and physical health of each party; (8) the home, school, and community history of the child; (9) the reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express a preference; (10) the willingness and ability of each party to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other party; (11) the distance between the respective residences of the parties; and (12) the responsibility for the care and rearing of the child previously exercised by each party.”
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.