Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 176 SO3D 851 - Washington v. Leonard

Washington v. Leonard’s Empirical Analysis

2015

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Nunn v. Baker · 42 So. 3d 1280 - Sexton v. Sexton · T.B. v. C.D.L. · M.R.J. v. D.R.B. · 623 So. 2d 722 - Ex Parte State Ex Rel. GMF

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

  1. “'Because the materials submitted to us indicate that the juvenile court has entered judgments regarding support and custody of the child, it”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““According to the materials the father submitted in support of his petition, the action before Judge Reynolds is. a custody dispute between the father and [M.J.L.] (‘the mother’), who have never married. The materials also include pleadings and documents from other cases involving the mother, the father, and the child, although the father does not appear to have included an entire record from .any of those, cases. What pleadings we do have indicate that in 2012 the State of Alabama filed a petition for support on behalf of the mother in the ‘Child Support Court of Elmore County Alabama,’ a division of the El- more Juvenile Court (‘the juvenile court’); that action was designated as case number CS-2012-900137.04 (‘the child-support action’). Although a determination of paternity was not requested, the father was named as the defendant in the child-support action. The original child-support order is not contained in the materials submitted to this court; however, the materials contain an order dated February 10, 2014, which modified the father’s child-support obligation and found the father in arrears. “In October 2013, the father, acting pro se, filed a petition seeking a finding of dependency and an award of custody in the juvenile court; that action was designated as case number JU-2013-287.02 (‘the dependency action’). On August 21, 2014, the juvenile court entered a judgment in the dependency action determining that the father had not met his burden of showing that the chi”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “This court cannot conduct a review of void orders; therefore, the ... petition is due to be dismissed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.