Phelps v. Phelps’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 1994 · most notably 17 Ark. App. 253 - Watts v. Watts (1986), Johnson v. Arledge (1975)
45 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 Weatherton v. Taylor · Kirby v. Kirby · Nelson v. Nelson · Jackson v. Jackson · Miller v. Miller
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““According to our long established rule in cases of this nature: ‘In determining the custody of a minor child, the welfare of the child is the supreme and controlling consideration. In the comparatively recent case of Kirby v. Kirby, 189 Ark. 937 , 75 S.W. 2d 817 , we said: ‘It is the well-established doctrine in this state that the chancellor, in awarding the custody of an infant child or in modifying such award thereafter, must keep in view primarily the welfare of the child, and should confide its custody to the parent most suitable therefor, the right of each parent to its custody being of equal dignity. Act 257 of 1921 (now §§ 6203-6207, Pope’s Digest) . . . A decree fixing the custody of a child is, however, final on the conditions then existing and should not be changed afterwards unless on altered conditions since the decree, or on material facts existing at the time of the decree but unknown to the court, and then only for the welfare of the child.’ See, also, Phelps v. Phelps, 209 Ark. 44 , 189 S. W. 2d 617 . The party seeking a modification of a divorce decree awarding custody of a minor child assumes the burden of showing such a change in conditions as to justify such modification. (Citing Cases) ’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Perkins v. Perkins · Smith v. Smith“...If the welfare of the child so requires, the decree may be modified without a change of circumstances, on the presentation of facts which although existing at the time of the original decree were not then presented or considered. The welfare of the child is the controlling consideration, and whenever it is shown that it is best for the welfare of the child that it be transferred from the custody to which it was awarded, the court will in its discretion modify the decree; otherwise modification is properly denied. The decree should not be modified merely to conform to the wishes of a parent, nor should it be modified for the reward or punishment of a parent, but the rights and wishes of the parents should, if possible, be considered. .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.