Sutton v. Sutton’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2000
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Kenner v. Kenner · Davenport v. Davenport · Stubblefield v. State Ex Rel. Fjelstad · Coleman v. Coleman · Johnson v. Johnson
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The effect of T.C.A. § 36-820 and § 36-828 is the Court which in a divorce, annulment or separate maintenance action awards custody and support of a child retains all decrees for custody and support within the control of the court to make such future changes or modifications as the exigencies of the case may require. Cravens v. Cravens, 30 Tenn.App. 487 , 207 S.W.2d 593 [1947]; Davenport v. Davenport, 178 Tenn. 517 , 160 S.W.2d 406 (1942); Coleman v. Coleman, 190 Tenn. 286 , 229 S.W.2d 341 (1950). The exclusive jurisdiction of the question as to whom the custody of a child should be awarded is in the court wherein the divorce was granted and the custody of the child first awarded. Coleman v. Coleman, supra; Johnson v. Johnson, 185 Tenn. 400 , 206 S.W.2d 400 (1947); Williamson v. Laughlin, 192 Tenn. 580 , 241 S.W.2d 576 (1961). Defendant, however, insists the cases above cited contemplate retention of the divorce decree during the lives of both parents for the purpose of any future modification of an award of the custody of a child. [[Image here]] A decree of a court of another state granting a divorce and awarding custody of a child is binding on courts of this State; but, if the child is domiciled in this State and there is such change in circumstances surrounding the child since the divorce as would demand action on the part of a local court to protect the child, then jurisdiction is assumed by the courts of this State. Kenner v. Kenner, 139 Tenn. 211 , 201 S.W. 779 , L.R.A”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rowland v. Tate
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.