Messick v. Messick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * It has been generally held, and consistently by this court, that the former decree fixing custody of a minor is conclusive of the interest of the child and the rights of the parents, so long as the status at the time of the decree remains without material change, or unless pertinent facts existing, but not disclosed, at the time of the final decree are brought to light. Sparks v. Sparks, 249 Ala. 352 , 31 So.2d 313 ; White v. White, 247 Ala. 405 , 24 So.2d 763 ; 17 Am.Jur. 519, § 684. “A prior decree of custody is attended by all reasonable presumptions, and the burden of showing such changed conditions or other substantial reasons for its modification rests upon the party seeking a change in custody. Sparks v. Sparks, supra; Ex parte Ingalls, 256 Ala. 305 , 54 So.2d 288 ; Hale v. Hale, 259 Ala. 666 , 68 So.2d 63 ; 27 C.J.S. Divorce § 317c, page 1195. “While it has frequently been declared that the question of rightful custody of the child is never res judicata, it has been stated that a prior decree is not subject to be challenged upon the mere desire or changed attitude of one of the contesting parents; and that ‘Courts disfavor oft-repeated, harassing litigation over the custody of infants.’ Greene v. Greene, 249 Ala. 155 , 30 So.2d 444, 446 ; Sparkman v. Sparkman, 217 Ala. 41 , 114 So. 580 .” See, also, Casey v. Cobb, 266 Ala. 434 , 96 So.2d 753 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Parker v. Parker