Stack v. Stack’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably 21 Cal. App. 4th 1057 - San Joaquin County Department of Human Services v. Gary L. (1993), 225 Cal. App. 2d 476 - Forslund v. Forslund (1964)
73 state decisions
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 41 Cal. 2d 202 - Gudelj v. Gudelj · Foster v. Foster · 49 Cal. App. 2d 581 - Washburn v. Washburn · 38 Cal. 2d 676 - Lerner v. Superior Court · 39 Cal. 2d 272 - Gantner v. Gantner
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In actions for divorce or for separate maintenance the court may, during the pendency of the action, or at the final hearing or at any time thereafter during the minority of any of the children of the marriage, make such order for the custody of such minor children as may seem necessary or proper and may at any time modify or vacate the same. In awarding the custody the court is to be guided by the following considerations: (1) By what appears to be for the best interests of the child * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dees v. McKenna“In custody cases the underlying principle, paramount to all others, is the welfare and best interest of the child. * * * Therefore an application for a modification of an award of custody must be addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, * * * subject only to the qualifications contained in section 138 of the Civil Code.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dees v. McKenna“The only `rule' consistently applied is that the court may modify or vacate its order `at any time.' Civ.Code, § 138; cf. Exley v. Exley, supra, 101 Cal.App.2d [831], 835, 226 P.2d 662 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dees v. McKenna
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.