Lawrence v. Delkamp’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Wessman v. Wessman (2008), Gietzen v. Gabel (2006)
25 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 Ryan v. Flemming · Lovcik v. Ellingson · State v. Kurle · Lawrence v. Delkamp
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“physical harm, bodily injury, sexual activity compelled by physical force, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, sexual activity compelled by physical force, or assault, not committed in self-defense, on the complaining family or household members.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child require [Jeff DeMers'] participation as a custodial parent.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. Unless agreed to in writing by the parties, no motion to modify a custody order may be made earlier than two years after the date of entry of an order establishing custody, except in accordance with subsection 3. 2. Unless agreed to in writing by the parties, if a motion for modification has been disposed of upon its merits, no subsequent motion may be filed within two years of disposition of the prior motion, except in accordance with subsection 3. 3. The time limitation in subsections 1 and 2 does not apply if the court finds: a. The persistent and willful denial or interference with visitation; b. The child’s present environment may endanger the child’s physical or emotional health or impair the child’s emotional development; or c. The primary physical care of the child has changed to the other parent for longer than six months. 4. A party seeking modification of a custody order shall serve and file moving papers and supporting affidavits and shall give notice to the other party to the proceeding who may serve and file a response and opposing affidavits. The court shall consider the motion on briefs and without oral argument or evidentia-ry hearing and shall deny the motion unless the court finds the moving party has established a prima facie case justifying a modification. If a prima facie case is established, the court shall set a date for an eviden-tiary hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lawrence v. Delkamp
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.