Governale v. HALEY’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The attachment which such other person may have acquired for the child will not be permitted to outweigh the natural right of the parent to its custody. In a particular case, however, when the parent, by agreement or otherwise, has relinquished or surrendered the custody of the child to third persons and has permitted the child to remain in their custody for a long period of time during which the parent has contributed little or nothing to the support of the child and has evinced no special interest in the child, the court may refuse to allow the parent to reclaim the child from those to whom it had been surrendered; and this is especially true in a case where the forces of environment may be so strong that the condition of affairs cannot be disturbed by a forced separation without risking the happiness and best welfare of the child.” 228 Miss. at 279 , 87 So. 2d at 689 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McWilliams v. Burns · 818 So. 2d 1221 - Hill v. Mitchell

2. “[The parent has been] contributing nothing to its support, taking no interest in it, and permitting it to remain continuously in the custody of others, substituting such others in his own place so that they stand in loco parentis to the child, and continuing this condition of affairs for so long a time that the affections of the child and of the foster parents have become mutually engaged to the extent that a severance of this relationship would surely result in destroying the best interest of the child.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 818 So. 2d 1221 - Hill v. Mitchell · 207 So. 2d 92 - Kees v. Fallen

3. “where a parent, without just cause or excuse, forsakes or deserts his infant child for such a length of time, and under such circumstances, as to show an intent to shirk or evade the duty, trouble or expense of rearing it, or a callous indifference to its wants, or a reckless disregard for its welfare, he or she is guilty of such abandonment.... Having once deserted the child, there is no guaranty that such a parent might not in the future be guilty of some equally atrocious conduct toward it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 818 So. 2d 1221 - Hill v. Mitchell