Meek v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In such a case as was instituted by the appellant, it is the burden of a parent seeking custody of his minor child to show a change of conditions such as would require modification of the prior decree if the best interests of the child are not to be injuriously affected. Neal v. Medcalf, Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1951, 244 S.W.2d 666 ; Lynch v. Wyatt, Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1945, 191 S.W.2d 499 ; Lovelace v. White, Tex.Civ .App. Texarkana 1948, 209 S.W.2d 422 . The child’s best interests are injuriously affected whenever they are not best served. It is to be presumed that it is to the best interest of the child that its parent have its custody unless it is affirmatively demonstrated that the best interests of the child require that the parent be deprived of its custody. 23 Tex.Jur., p. 710, sec. 16; Greenlaw v. Dilworth, Tex.Com.App.1927, 299 S. W. 875 , reversing, Tex.Civ.App., 291 .S.W. 331; Luman v. Luman, Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1950, 231 S.W.2d 555 ; Binion v. Mathis, Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1943, 171 S.W.2d 512 ; Sawyer v. Bezner, Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1947, 204 S.W.2d 19 , error ref., n. r. e. “It is not every change in condition which takes place which justifies modification of a prior decree. What must the parent prove to discharge the burden incumbent upon him besides the fact of parentage? We believe that it ■is sufficient to show any change of •circumstances demonstrative of the ■parent’s improved condition or fitness .as a custodian, any change of circumstances demonstr”

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