Dvorak v. Dvorak’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Conceicao] has expressed a willingness to adjust [Larson’s] parenting time to allow him all-summer and school-break parenting time and to have her spousal support adjusted downwardly to offset parenting time travel expenses. Although not an ideal compromise in the eyes of most non-custodial parents, longer, although less frequent, parenting time can provide an adequate básis for preserving and fostering a good parent-child relationship. In the instant case, the Court is cognizant that the parties’ children are on the eve of their teen years — a time when the presencé of both parents is especially important. Preteens deal with a lot of changes under any circumstance, and adding a move 2,000 miles away that offers only marginal. advantages, at best, would add yet another layer to. the changes they will inevitably experience in the very near future. • . That observation aside,' the' Court must also consider under this factor the likelihood that each parent will comply with the altered parenting time that is necessitated by a move more than 2,000 miles away. As mentioned earlier, there have been parenting time issues in the past. In its consideration' of Factor 4, the Court drew upon several things that have occurred during the course of' this litigation. Specifically and most egregiously, [Conceicao] was found in contempt when she and the children traveled to Brazil in 2011 and did not return until three week's after the agreed-upon time, informing [Larson]- via an email about ”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gilbert v. Gilbert · Larson v. Larson

2. “the respective ages of the parties, their earning ability, the duration of the marriage and conduct of the parties during the marriage, their station in life, the circumstances and necessities of each, their health and physical condition, their financial circumstances as shown by the property owned at the time, its value at the time, its income-producing capacity, if any, whether accumulated before or after the marriage, and such other matters as may be material. The trial court is not required to make specific findings, but it must specify a rationale for its determination.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Berg v. Berg · Holden v. Holden

3. “We have said that a property division need not be equal to be equitable, but a substantial disparity must be explained.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Berg v. Berg · Ulsaker v. White