Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 W. Va. 25 - Ford v. Ford

172 W. Va. 25 - Ford v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
3
states following
August 2002
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 2002

16 state decisions

80198319902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on 153 W. Va. 404 - State Ex Rel. Kiger v. Hancock · 158 W. Va. 343 - Hammack v. Wise · 165 W. Va. 636 - Leach v. Bright

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

  1. ““ ‘ “ ‘A parent has the natural right to the custody of his or her infant child and, unless the parent is an unfit person because of misconduct, neglect, immorality, abandonment, or other dereliction of duty, or has waived such right, or by agreement or otherwise has permanently transferred, relinquished or surrendered such custody, the right of the parent to the custody of his or her child will be recognized and enforced by the courts.’ Syl. pt. 2, Hammock v. Wise, [158] W.Va. [343], 211 S.E.2d 118 (1975); Syllabus, State ex rel. Kiger v. Hancock, 153 W.Va. 404 , 168 S.E.2d 798 (1969); Syllabus, Whiteman v. Robinson, 145 W.Va. 685 , 116 S.E.2d 691 (1960).” Syl. pt. 1, Leach v. Bright, [165] W.Va. [636], 270 S.E.2d 793 (1980).’ Syllabus, Ford v. Ford, 172 W.Va. 25 , 303 S.E.2d 253 (1983).””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Our decision is based on this well-established principle of law [that the natural parent's right to custody of his or her child is paramount to that of any third party]. In this case the record contains no evidence that the appellee intended permanently to abandon or relinquish her rights to Michelle when she left the appellants’ home_ There was no agreement between the parties, either oral or written, that Michelle would be remaining with her grandparents permanently.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.