Moriarty v. Bradt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

91 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]hat the only stale interest warranting the invocation of the State’s parens patriae jurisdiction to overcome the presumption in favor of a parent’s decision and to force grandparent visitation over the wishes of a fit parent is the avoidance of harm to the child. When no harm threatens a child’s welfare, the State lacks a sufficiently compelling justification for the infringement on the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit. However, when harm is proved and the presumption in favor of a fit parent’s decision making is overcome, the court must decide the issue of an appropriate visitation schedule based on the child’s best interests. [Id. at 115, 827 A.2d 203 ; see also In re Adoption of a Child, by 135 N.J. 473, 495 , 641 A.2d 235 , cert. denied sub nom., Hollingshead v. Hoxworth, 513 U.S. 967 , 115 S.Ct. 433 , 130 L.Ed.2d 345 (1994) (citing In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1, 26 , 608 A.2d 1312 (1992) as recognizing that to avoid harm to child some public-agency adoptions may require continued contact with natural parents).)”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 387 Wis. 2d 1 - Michels v. Lyons (In Re Visitation of A. A. L.) · In re D.C.

2. “If the court agrees that the potential for harm has been shown, the presumption in favor of parental decision making will be deemed overcome.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Donna Slawinski v. Mary E. Nicholas · 434 N.J. Super. 113 - R.K. and A.K. v. D.L., Jr.

3. “a. A grandparent or any sibling of a child residing in this State may make application before the Superior Court, in accordance with the Rules of Court, for an order for visitation. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the granting of visitation is in the best interests of the child. b. In making a determination on an application filed pursuant to this section, the court shall consider the following factors: (1) The relationship between the child and the applicant; (2) The relationship between each of the child's parents or the person with whom the child is residing and the applicant; (3) The time which has elapsed since the child last had contact with the applicant; (4) The effect that such visitation will have on the relationship between the child and the child's parents or the person with whom the child is residing; (5) If the parents are divorced or separated, the time sharing arrangement which exists between the parents with regard to the child; (6) The good faith of the applicant in filing the application; (7) Any history of physical, emotional or sexual abuse or neglect by the applicant; and (8) Any other factor relevant to the best interests of the child. c. With regard to any application made pursuant to this section, it shall be prima facie evidence that visitation is in the child's best interest if the applicant had, in the past, been a full-time caretaker for the child. [ N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1 (as amended by L. 1993, ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Anthony C. Major v. Julie Maguire(074345) · 422 N.J. Super. 242 - Tortorice v. Vanartsdalen