Frye v. Frye’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 1996 · most notably Clark v. Boeing Company (1981), Gibbs v. Gibbs (1996)
32 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 Frazier v. Frazier · Belford v. Belford · Jones v. Jones · 62 So. 2d 907 - Cone v. Cone · 160 So. 2d 159 - Ritsi v. Ritsi
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An award of custody in a final decree of divorce is to be regarded as res judi-cata as of the time of the decree, and after the right to custody has thus been fixed by the divorce decree in one parent, on consideration of a subsequent petition for a change of the custody the court does not have the same degree of discretion to choose between the parties regarding the matter of custody, as it had on the occasion of the initial custody determination made in the final decree of divorce. Thus, on petition for modification, the court is not warranted in making a change in custody unless there has been a substantial change in conditions and circumstances since the date of custodial decree or unless there is presented pertinent facts which were in existence at the time the decree was entered but which were unknown to the court at that time. Even if the court finds a substantial change in conditions a decree should not be altered unless the welfare of the children would be promoted.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In order to modify an existing custodial order plaintiff must allege and prove a substantial change in circumstances or conditions, since the time the decree was entered. Sayward v. Sayward, Fla. 1949, 43 So.2d 685 ; Belford v. Belford, 1947, 159 Fla. 547 , 32 So.2d 312 ; Bennett v. Bennett, Fla. 1954, 73 So.2d 274 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The law is settled that once a court makes a custodial determination it retains jurisdiction to modify its custody orders at any time prior to the child's majority. * * * This continuing jurisdiction to modify its own decree is generally considered exclusive to the divorce court." (Citations omitted.)”
2 later decisions 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.