Fry v. Ball’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
100 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably 73 Cal. App. 3d 298 - Clark v. Superior Court (1977), Petition of Edilson (1981)
100 state decisions — followed in 22 states
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 9 Cal. 3d 824 - Ferreira v. Ferreira · Wheeler v. District Court in & for City & Co. of Denver · Nelson v. District Court in and for Second Jud. Dist. · 36 Colo. App. 96 - In Re Custody of Thomas · 36 Colo. App. 91 - In Re Custody of Glass
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The underlying policy of the Act is to prevent the desperate shifting from state to state of thousands of innocent children by interested parties seeking to gain custody rights in one state even though denied those rights by the decree of another state. The provisions of the Act seek `to eliminate jurisdictional fishing with children as bait.' Wheeler v. District Court, 186 Colo. 218 , 526 P.2d 658 (1974).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Recognition of out-of-state custody decrees. The courts of this state shall recognize and enforce an initial or modification decree of a court of another state which had assumed jurisdiction under statutory provisions substantially in accordance with this article or which was made under factual circumstances meeting the jurisdictional standards of the article, so long as this decree has not been modified in accordance with jurisdictional standards substantially similar to those of this article.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Petition of Edilson · G.S. v. Ewing“(a) If a court of another state has made a custody decree, a court of this state shall not modify that CT Page 5942 decree unless (1) it appears to the court of this state that the court which rendered the decree does not now have jurisdiction under jurisdictional prerequisites substantially in accordance with this chapter or has declined to assume jurisdiction to modify the decree and (2) the court of this state has jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions 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.