Miracle v. Miracle’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 1991
15 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 Finlay v. Finlay · Wear v. Wear · White v. White · Perrenoud v. Perrenoud · Leach v. Leach
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Where the rights of contending parents to the custody of their children is presented in a habeas corpus proceeding, the trial court has authority, where all parties are before the court and the children are physically present in the State of Kansas, to hear evidence of a change of circumstances when faced with an allegedly valid order from a sister state awarding custody to the petitioner, regardless of whether the court finds that sister state's order to be constitutionally valid or invalid in the same proceeding. "A habeas corpus proceeding is a proper vehicle for the determination of questions pertaining to child custody. "The paramount concern of courts in every child custody proceeding is the welfare of the child. "In the interest of a minor child's welfare, a court of this state, when the child is physically present therein, has jurisdiction over his care, custody and control, although the court of a sister state has `concurrent jurisdiction.'"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Beebe v. Chavez“Where the rights of contending parents to the custody of their children is presented in a habeas corpus proceeding, the trial court has authority, where all parties are before the court and the children are physically present in the State of Kansas, to hear evidence of a change of circumstances when faced with an allegedly valid order from a sister state awarding custody to the petitioner, regardless of whether the court finds that sister state's order to be constitutionally valid or invalid in the same proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Beebe v. Chavez
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.