West v. Marko’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he trial court's initial custody order, awarding custody to the father, was the result of a hearing at which neither the mother nor the child were present. The court did not appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the child. The only evidence received by the court was presented by the father. Although the custody order was not technically denominated a default judgment, it was, in effect, a result reached by default, since the court heard only one side of the dispute. Even in suits involving competent adults, our jurisprudence disfavors default judgments, believing that justice is more likely to result from a full, fair adversarial proceeding. See, e.g., Estate of Teel v. Darby, 129 N.C.App. 604, 607 , 500 S.E.2d 759, 762 (1998) ("[P]rovisions relating to the setting aside of default judgments should be liberally construed so as to give litigants an opportunity to have a case disposed of on the merits."). In some instances, where parties sit on their rights, we allow dollars or widgets to go by default. However, our courts should go the extra mile to insure that custody of our children does not go by default. See Qurneh v. Colie, 122 N.C.App. 553, 559 , 471 S.E.2d 433, 436 (1996) ("As a policy matter, issues such as custody should only be decided after careful consideration of all pertinent evidence in order to ensure the best interests of the child are protected.")”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 212 N.C. App. 25 - Harrington v. Wall

2. “Permanent custody orders can only be modified by first finding that there has been a substantial change of circumstances affecting the welfare of the child. Once the trial court makes the threshold determination that a substantial change has occurred, the trial court then must consider whether a change in custody would be in the best interests of the child.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 248 N.C. App. 491 - Hatcher v. Matthews

3. “to the extent possible, child custody determinations should be based upon consideration of the best available evidence, and should not be based merely upon deemed admissions or one parent's perspective.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 212 N.C. App. 25 - Harrington v. Wall