LeDoux v. LeDoux’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Courts have a duty to consider whether religious beliefs threaten the health and well-being of a child. [Citations omitted.] Thus, when a court finds that particular religious practices pose an immediate and substantial threat to a child’s temporal well-being, a court may fashion an order aimed at protecting the child from that threat. [Citations omitted.] In so doing, a court must narrowly tailor its order so as to result in the least possible intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests of the parent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Neb. Ct. App. 6 - Hornung v. Hornung · Peterson v. Peterson

2. “The free exercise clause of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution forecloses governmental regulation of religious beliefs. “Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief . . . nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities Courts must preserve an attitude of impartiality between religions and may not disqualify a parent solely because of his or her religious beliefs.... Although the prohibition against infringement of religious belief is absolute, the immunity afforded religious practices by the first amendment is not so rigid. A state may abridge religious practices upon a demonstration that some compelling state interest outweighs a complainant’s interests in religious freedom.... The paramount consideration in all cases involving the custody or visitation of a child is the best interests of the child. [§ 42-364]. . . . Courts have a duty to consider whether religious beliefs threaten the health and well-being of a child. . . . Prohibiting a court from considering “ ‘religious factors under any circumstances would blind courts to important elements bearing on the best interests of the child.’ ”... “The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose . . . the child to ... ill health Thus, when a court finds that particular religious practices pose an immediate and substantial threat to a child’s temporal well-being, a court may fashion an order aimed at p”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 Neb. Ct. App. 384 - Garrett v. Garrett

3. “Since the entry of the decree herein, the [mother] has adopted systems of corporal punishment and fear to force obedience and submission of her children to the doctrine of her church. Generally, Courts preserve an attitude of impartiality between religions and will not disqualify a parent because of his or her religious beliefs. However, when such beliefs threaten the health and wellbeing [sic] of children, then the courts have a duty to act to remove children from such abuse. If she were allowed to continue her practice of corporal punishment and fear onto these children, it is obvious that such acts would have not only a deleterious affect [sic] upon the relationships between the [father] and the children, but also upon the physical and mental wellbeing [sic] of the children themselves.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peterson v. Peterson