Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 ME 167 - Young v. Young

Young v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
April 2013
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Taxpayers for the Animas-La Plata Referendum v. Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District · King Resources Co. v. Environmental Improvement Commission · Lewiston Daily Sun v. School Administrative District No. 43 · Sordyl v. Sordyl · In Re Misty B.

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

  1. “Jeffrey and Danyelle Young met in 1995 when Serena was several months old. Jeffrey and Danyelle were married in 1996, and Lexi, the couple’s only natural child, was born in 1997. According to Jeffrey’s testimony, he was the only person acting as a father to Serena during the five years the couple was together. After Danyelle and Jeffrey separated in August 2000, both children lived with Danyelle and had visitation with Jeffrey. Danyelle filed a complaint for divorce on September 22, 2000, and a subsequent interim order by the divorce court (Jordan, C.M.O.) awarded Danyelle the primary residential care of both children and Jeffrey rights of visitation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) sufficient collateral consequences will flow from a determination of the questions presented, (2) the question, although moot in the immediate context, is of great public interest and should be addressed for future guidance of the bar and public, or (3) the issue may be repeatedly presented to the trial court, yet escape review at the appellate level because of its fleeting or determinate nature.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “whether a court granting a final protection order on behalf of a party who is not a parent, guardian, or custodian of a child in the household, may award parental rights and responsibilities for the minor child to that party.”
    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.