Greene v. Greene’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

130 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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`the parent will not be permitted to reclaim the custody of the child, unless [s]he can show that a change of the custody will materially promote h[er] child's welfare.'”

   23 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gonzalez v. Parker · Ex Parte DJ

2. “"True, we have often declared that the question of rightful custody of the child is never res judicata. But we have also stated that it does not follow that a former decree of a court of competent jurisdiction awarding the custody to one of two contesting parties is to be accorded no weight in later proceedings. Judicial findings upon the same, or substantially the same, conditions are presumed correct. The burden is on the party seeking a change of custody to show some change of conditions or other substantial reason therefor. . . . "This matter of changed conditions was stressed also in more recent cases. . . . We are of the opinion that no substantial change in conditions has been made to appear, nor have any pertinent facts existing at the time of the final decree come to light . . ., nor can we find in the record any substantial reason for the change of custody."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gallant v. Gallant · 841 So. 2d 1252 - Gp v. Aak

3. ““We are not unmindful of the fact that this cause was tried before the court on oral testimony. But we feel impelled to the conclusion that the decree rendered overlooked the principles of law applicable to the facts, which were practically without any serious dispute. What was said in Fort v. Fort, 246 Ala. 83 , 18 So.2d 870, 872 , is equally applicable here, as disclosed by the following quotation: ‘We are fully mindful of the due weight to be accorded the conclusions of the trial judge before whom the parties and witnesses appeared and testified. Yet it seems clear that he has erred, not so much in conclusions of facts, as in the application of the governing priniples of law, and in such a case our responsibility is to adjudicate the cause in this light.’ See also Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206 , 189 So. 751 ; White v. White, supra; Payne v. Payne, supra [ 218 Ala. 330 , 118 So. 575 ].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alexander v. Davis