Ronchetto v. Ronchetto’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Modification. (1) No motion to modify a custody decree may be made earlier than two (2) years after its date, unless the court permits it to be made on the basis of affidavits that there is reason to believe the child's present environment may endanger seriously his physical, mental, moral, or emotional health. “(2) The court shall not modify a prior custody decree unless it finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of entry of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or his custodian, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. In applying these standards the court shall retain the custodian appointed pursuant to the prior decree unless: “(a) the custodian agrees to the modification; “(b) the child has been integrated into the family of the petitioner with consent of the custodian; or “(c) the child's present environment endangers seriously his physical, mental, moral, or emotional health, and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by its advantages to him. “(3) Attorney fees and costs shall be assessed against a party seeking modification if the court finds that the modification action is vexatious and constitutes harassment.” (Emphasis added.)”

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

2. “The out of court statements of the [social] workers, which were contained in their investigative report constitute hearsay evidence. [We] recently held that consideration of investigation reports in a child custody case, without requiring the authors to testify at a hearing, constitutes reversible error. To satisfy the due process rights of the custodial parent and to accurately assess the best interests of the minor child, the trial judge must require “*** the authors of the report to testify at a hearing and be subject to cross-examination ....””

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

3. “The court may interview the child in chambers to ascertain the child's wishes as to his custodian and as to visitation. The court may permit counsel to be present at the interview. The court shall cause -- - record of - interview - - - - and a - the to be made to - - -of the record - - - - be part - in the case.”

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