Rice v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is no evidence, or at least not all of the evidence, to show the grounds upon which the custody of the children was first taken from the father, and in the second place from the mother, and given to her father — the grandfather of the children. The court had authority to remove the children from the custody or guardianship of both of the parents. The benefit of the child, which is the highest consideration, . may require this removal. The interests of children, and of the public, in their morals and education, are superior to the claims of parents; and the latter must yield when they come in conflict. We must presume that there was no error, and the court adjudged rightly in awarding to the grandfather the care, management, and education of the children.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dilworth v. Greenlaw · Davis v. Elkins

2. ““Under the ample discretion vested in' courts by this section, the decree in substance, and its intended effect, may be maintained. The division of the estate is to be made by the court, in such way as may peem just and right, not only to the parties but to the children. “The property in this case is but small in amount.; not at all sufficient to maintain the parents and children, or even the children separately. The court has, in substance, adjudged, or intended to adjudge, that the proceeds of the ■whole property should be applied to the benefit of the minors. “If these children had been intrusted to the father, he would have been bound for their maintenance; if to the mother, the funds* if there be any, must have been furnished by the father for their support; and when given to a guardian, it is but reasonable that such disposition should be made of the estate of both father and mother, as may be sufficient for their maintenance, education, etc. The reasons why those who have brought children into the world should support and protect them in their helplessness and infancy will suggest themselves to every mind. They are enforced by instinct, and by laws human and divine. In making the division of the property, courts must protect the children, as well as the 'parents, from injustice.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hughes v. Hughes