Gonyea v. Gonyea’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. “"* * * There is no constant or standard quantity of change which will qualify. The amount of change necessary to justify a modification of a decree varies with the facts of the individual case. * * * As we have already stated, pre-eminence is given to the interests of the children."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Burns, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus · Botofan-Miller v. Miller

2. ““ * * * The tragic nature of divorce is vividly portrayed when young children are drawn into the proceedings as witnesses to take sides against one or the other of their parents, both of whom they should dearly love. Our disapproval of that practice was registered in Kreutzer v. Kreutzer, 226 Or. 158 , 359 P.2d 536 (1961) in the following language: “ ‘ * * * we share the view of the circuit judge that in a case of this kind, young children of the parties should not be forced to become witnesses * * *. This practice has been frowned upon by other courts. Thus it was said in Buck v. Buck, 320 Mich. 624 , 31 N.W.2d 829, 831 , 2 A.L.R.2d 1325 : “ ' “The practice of calling children of the parties as witnesses in a divorce action has been repeatedly disapproved by this Court. Counsel, if possible, should refrain from doing so. It is bad from a social view point though not legally forbidden.” * * * ’ “See also, Gallagher v. Gallagher, 187 Or. 625 , 212 P.2d 746 (1949). But, as was pointed out in the Kreutzer case, we are not at liberty to change the rules set forth by the legislature prescribing who may be a witness. According to ORS 44.020 and 44.030, Douglas, who had become ten years of age when the defendant wished to call him to the witness stand, was a competent witness. The trial court’s refusal to hear his testimony was error.””

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

3. “evidence which shows a change in the circumstances which occurred since the decree was rendered, or, in the alternative, [which shows] the existence of some material fact which was unknown at the time of the decree”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Burns, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus