Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 A2D 290 - Dorsett v. Dorsett

Dorsett v. Dorsett’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 2014

11 state decisions

7019711980199020002010decided

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 Boone v. Boone · Chapsky v. Wood · Coles v. Coles

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

  1. “Since what has been termed the classic decision on the subject, Chapsky v. Wood, 26 Kan. 650 (1881), most jurisdictions, including this jurisdiction, have accepted Judge Brewer’s pronouncement that in child custody cases: “Above all things, the paramount consideration is, what will promote the welfare of the child ?” This principle is easily stated but its application in a particular case presents one of the heaviest burdens that can be placed on a trial judge. Out of a maze of conflicting testimony, usually including what one court called “a tolerable amount of perjury,” the judge must make a decision which will inevitably affect materially the future life of an innocent child. In making his decision the judge can obtain little help from precedents or general principles. Each case stands alone. After attempting to appraise and compare the personalities and capabilities of the two parents, the judge must endeavor to look into the future and decide that the child’s best interests will be served if committed to the custody of the father or mother. He starts with the premise, as did the trial judge here, that the best interests of the child would be served by living in a united home with the affection, companionship and care of both father and mother, but that possibility has been eliminated before the case reaches judge. So, the question for him is what is best for the child within the limitations presented. When the judge makes his decision, he has no assurance that his decisi”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The paramount consideration in child custody cases is the welfare of the child. Although . . . there is a presumption in this jurisdiction that children of tender years are better off with their mothers — absent a finding that the mother is unfit — that presumption does not preclude a trial judge from considering evidence pointing to another conclusion. [ Id. at 292 ; footnote omitted.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “in addition to [her] evaluation of the credibility of witnesses. . . only the trial judge has an opportunity to appraise at first hand the character of the parties.”
    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.