Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 258 Ark. 608 - Johnson v. Arledge

Johnson v. Arledge’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Burns v. Burns (1993), 81 Ark. App. 292 - Carver v. May (2003)

37 state decisions

100197519801990200020102020decided

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 Kirby v. Kirby · S v. G · Phelps v. Phelps · 61 Wash. 2d 669 - Cumbie v. Cumbie · Miller v. Miller

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

  1. “. . . the fact that the party seeking to gain or retain custody of a child has violated court orders or has been in contempt of court in that respect is a factor to be taken into consideration in the court’s exercise of discretion to grant or deny a modification of custody orders but is not so conclusive on the matter as to require the court to act contrary to the best welfare of the child. To hold otherwise, we would have to permit the desire to punish a parent to override the paramount consideration in all child custody cases, i.e., the welfare of the child involved. We have heretofore said that the courts must be keenly alert to the necessity of preventing the shortcomings or merits of the parents from overshadowing that which is best for the child. The chancellor committed no error in this respect.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “. . . Even though appellant did not specifically pray for judgment for arrearages, she was, in equity, under her prayer for general relief entitled to any relief in equity that would be justified upon proof of the facts alleged.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.