Wellons v. White’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the instant case, the district court erred by failing to provide Mr. White a method to purge his contempt. On 5 July 2012, the district court declared Mr. White to be in direct and wilful [sic] civil contempt of the prior Orders of the Court. It suspended Mr. White's arrest based on the following condition: Defendant can purge his contempt by fully complying with the terms of the 30 March 2012 Interim Order, the prior Orders of 28 December 2007 and 27 July 2010, and this Order. The order did not establish a date after which Mr. White's contempt was purged or provide any other means for Mr. White to purge the contempt. We have previously reversed similar contempt orders. For instance, in Cox a contempt order stated the defendant could purge her contempt by not: placing either of the minor children in a stressful situation or a situation detrimental to their welfare. Specifically, the defendant is ordered not to punish either of the minor children in any manner that is stressful, abusive, or detrimental to that child. There, we reversed because the trial court failed to clearly specify what the defendant can and cannot do to the minor children in order to purge herself of the civil contempt. Similarly, in Scott a contempt order stated: Defendant may postpone his imprisonment indefinitely by (1) enrolling in a Controlled Anger Program approved by this Court on or before August 1, 2001 and thereafter successfully completing the Program; (2) by not interfering with the Plaintif”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 245 N.C. App. 260 - Spears v. Spears · 260 N.C. App. 208 - Kolczak v. Johnson

2. “[N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 50-13.1(a) grants grandparents the broad privilege to institute an action for custody or visitation, as allowed in [N.C. Gen. Stat.] §§ 50-13.2(b1), 50-13.2A, and 50-13.5(j).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 263 N.C. App. 652 - Rivera v. Matthews · Turnmire v. And

3. “analysis after it had concluded Defendant had acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected parental status. On both of these arguments, we disagree. Analysis I. Standing Defendant first asserts that the trial court erred when it determined that Plaintiffs had standing to seek custody of Andrea. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs had no parent-child relationship with Andrea, and did not allege that Defendant was unfit as a parent or had acted inconsistently with his parental rights. We disagree.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Turnmire v. And