Messner v. Messner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

128 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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In all cases of separation and of divorce the children shall be placed under the care of the party who shall have obtained the separation or divorce unless the judge shall, for the greater advantage of the children, order that some or all of them shall be entrusted to the care of the other party. * * *"”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tuggle v. Tuggle · Lovell v. Lovell

2. “"Under the law and settled jurisprudence of this State, the trial judge has the discretion of awarding the custody of a child whose parents are legally divorced in accordance with the circumstances existing when he is called to act. Although this discretion is subject to review and control by us, we are usually reluctant to reverse a judgment in these instances, unless we find and conclude that the trial judge has abused the discretion vested in him. Black v. Black, 205 La. 861 , 18 So.2d 321 ; Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, 215 La. 631 , 41 So.2d 456 ; Kieffer v. Heriard, 221 La. 151 , 58 So.2d 836 ; Pepiton v. Pepiton, 222 La. 784 , 64 So.2d 3 . "We have also consistently recognized that the paramount consideration in determining to whom the custody of a child should be given after the divorce, a complex and grievous responsibility which too often preys upon one's heart, is the welfare, happiness and best interest of the child. In doing justice to this principle this Court has consistently awarded the custody of minor children to the mother unless she has been found morally or otherwise unfit, or unless she is incapable of giving them proper care and guidance. Sampognaro v. Sampognaro, supra; Pepiton v. Pepiton, supra; Cannon v. Cannon, 225 La. 874 , 74 So.2d 147 ; Salley v. Salley, 238 La. 691 , 116 So.2d 296 ; Dungan v. Dungan, 239 La. 733 , 119 So.2d 843 ."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCaa v. McCaa · 133 So. 2d 908 - Baasen v. Baasen

3. “"The law is well settled to the effect that in cases of custody of children, the mother is to be preferred unless she is shown to be morally unfit. The question posed here is, does the one indiscretion she has committed render her morally unfit? A person who is puritanically inclined would say that she is; one who is more practical would say she is not. Courts always endeavor, when possible, to take the practical view of such matters. We do not think that because of this one error in her life, grievous as it was, she should be deprived of the legal custody of the child, especially one of such tender age, requiring her care and attention more than that of the father. It is the child's own interest and welfare that is of paramount importance and we are sure that the district judge gave that matter due consideration when he held that at the time of the trial, the mother was not morally unfit to provide for its welfare. Should she prove to be undeserving in the future, the law has wisely reserved to the father the right to apply to the Court to have the decree of custody changed."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCaa v. McCaa · 170 So. 2d 144 - Fletcher v. Fletcher