Wilkinson v. Wilkinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We understand tibe law to be, when the custody of children is the question, that the best interest of the children is the paramount fact. Rights of father and mother sink into insignificance before that . . . “. . . We see no reason to doubt that Mrs. Bort is a loving mother, devoted and faithful to her little ones. Her conduct since she left her husband, and since the divorce, seems to have been without reproach. Whatever may be her faults, it is evident that these children will receive only the kindest care if left in their present home. They are of that tender age when they need a mothers care. No stranger, however kind, can fill her place. We may not ignore these universal laws of our nature, and they compel us to place these children where they will be within the reach of a mother’s hoe and care.” (Emphasis added.) (pp. 309, 310, 311.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. St. Clair v. St. Clair

2. ““A district court has power to modify or change any previous order with respect to payments for the support, maintenance and education of the minor children of a marriage whenever circumstances render such change proper. The new order, however, cannot increase or decrease amounts past due. It must be made effective from the date of modification and not from the date of the original decree or from the time of changed circumstances. In other words, the modification must operate prospectively and not retroactively.” (Syl. If 1.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Teegarden v. Teegarden

3. ““There is no contention that the mother is an improper person to have the care of the child. To transfer this child from her home with her mother where she has been since she was two year's of age and where she is happy and well cared for, to the home of the plaintiff, who has a new wife and two children, and who is unable to support his present family, seems unwarranted. We think this order should be set aside.” (1. c. 488.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Travis v. Travis