Brickley v. Brickley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

72 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “While we are not able to say the trial judge could not have found otherwise than he did upon the evidence introduced below, this Court as a court of review has heretofore held by a long line of decisions that we are in a poor position to look at a cold transcript of the record, and conclude that the trial judge, who saw the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and scrutinized their testimony as it came from the witness stand, did not properly understand the significance of the evidence, or that he should have found its preponderance or the inferences therefrom to be different from what he did.”

   17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCarthy v. McCarthy · Walker v. Nelson

2. “While we are not able to say the trial judge could not have found otherwise than he did upon the evidence introduced below, this Court as a court of review has heretofore held by a long line of decisions that we are in a poor position to look at a cold transcript of the record, and conclude that the trial judge, who saw the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and serutinized their testimony as it came from the witness stand, did not properly understand the significance of the evidence, or that he should have found its preponderance or the inferences therefrom to be different from what he did.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bettencourt v. Ford · In Re The Paternity of B.B., R.B. v. T.J.

3. ““There was no evidence nor finding that the appellant mother was of bad moral character or that she was an unfit person to have the custody of the children. True another judge heard the petition to modify. However, that incident emphasizes to us the importance of the principle that a modification of a permanent order of custody cannot be made without a showing of substantial change in conditions which affect the welfare of the children. Adams v. Purtlebaugh.... # sfc s}: “There is reason and logic in such a principle of law. The purpose of such a rule in the law is that the welfare of the children and their custody should not continually be changed and left uncertain thus creating instability in the living conditions in the children. It is their welfare — not that of the parents — that should be the primary concern of the trial court.” (Emphasis added.) 245 Ind. at 240, 241 .”

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