152 Ind. App. 660 - Landing v. Landing’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. ““The law in Indiana is well established that any modification of a custody order must be based upon a change of circumstances occurring after the initial order, which renders the contemplated change necessary for the welfare of the child. The burden is on the party seeking the modification of the decree to prove such changes. Perdue v. Perdue (1970), 254 Ind. 77 , 257 N.E.2d 827 , 21 Ind. Dec. 188 ; Brickley v. Brickley (1965), 247 Ind. 201 , 210 N.E.2d 850 , 211 N.E.2d 183 , 6 Ind. Dec. 572 ; Wible v. Wible (1964), 245 Ind. 235 , 196 N.E.2d 571 , 3 Ind. Dec. 104 ; Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269 , 102 N.E.2d 499 . “As was stated by this Court in Wible, supra: ‘There is reason and logic in such a principle of law. The purpose of such a rule in the law is that the welfare of the children and their custody should not continually be changed, and left uncertain, thus creating instability in the living conditions of the children. It is their welfare— not that of the parents — that should be the primary concern of the trial court.’ 245 Ind. 235, 241 , 196 N.E.2d 571, 574 .””

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

2. ““While we are not able to say the trial judge could not have found otherwise than he did upon the evidence introduced below, this Court as a court of review has heretofore held by a long line of decisions that we are in a poor position to look at a cold transcript of the record, and conclude that the trial judge, who saw the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and scrutinized their testimony as it came from the witness stand, did not properly understand the significance of the evidence, or that he should have found its preponderance or the inferences therefrom to be different from what he did. “On appeal it is not enough that the evidence might support some other conclusion, but it must positively require the conclusion contended for by appellant before there is a basis for reversal.””

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

3. ““The modification of an order of child custody must be grounded on the well-being and best interests of the child. An order of child custody must stand so long as the conditions under which the order was made continue to exist. It is not in the best interests of a child of tender years to be made a ball in a legal game of ping pong between litigious parents. However, when it can be shown by the petitioning party that such changes have taken place that the prior order is no longer in the best interests of the child, the prior order must, and should be modified.””

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