Whitehead v. Whitehead’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The determination whether the McLendon standard or the 'best interests of the child' standard set forth in [ Ex parte] Couch [, 521 So.2d 987 , 989 (Ala. 1988),] applies turns on whether there has been a previous custody determination as between the two parents. If no previous custody determination has been made, or if a custody determination has been made that does not favor one parent over the other, such as an award of joint custody pursuant to which the parties share both joint legal custody and joint physical custody, see § 30-3-151(1), Ala. Code 1975, the 'best interests of the child' standard applies. New v. McCullar , 955 So.2d 431 , 434 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). However, if a previous custody award favors one parent, i.e., by awarding one parent primary, or sole, physical custody, the McLendon standard applies to any modification action. Rehfeld v. Roth , 885 So.2d 791 , 794 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (citing Scholl v. Parsons , 655 So.2d 1060 , 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995) ). Our supreme court has explained: " 'There are different standards for a trial court to use in ruling on questions of child custody. If one parent has previously been granted primary physical custody or if one parent has "given up" legal custody, then an existing custody arrangement will be modified only if the modification materially promotes the best interests and welfare of the child. Ex parte McLendon , 455 So.2d 863 , 865-66 (Ala. 1984). If neither parent has previously been given primary physical c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 243 So. 3d 826 - Williams v. Williams

2. “" 'The trial court's divorce judgment awarded the parties "joint custody," yet it awarded the father "primary physical custody." "These terms have been commonly employed by the bench and bar; however, in light of the definitions of the types of custody set out in the joint-custody statute, those older terms are unclear and ... serve only to confuse the issue of custody." Harris v. Harris , 775 So.2d 213 , 214 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). Using the proper terms set out in the joint-custody statute, § 30-3-151, Ala. Code 1975, the divorce judgment can be construed only one way-that is, it awards the father sole physical custody and the mother and the father joint legal custody. See Harris , 775 So.2d at 214 .' " Richardson v. Fotheringham , 950 So.2d 339 , 341 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 252 So. 3d 1088 - Darling v. Darling

3. “created a joint-physical-custody arrangement, as defined by § 30-3-151(3).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 243 So. 3d 826 - Williams v. Williams