3 Ariz. App. 274 - Borg v. Borg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There can be no doubt that A.R.S. § 25-321 provides continuing jurisdiction to amend, change or alter the provisions of a decree relating to the custody of minor children. Andro v. Andro, 97 Ariz. 302 , 400 P.2d 105 (1965); Smith v. Smith, 90 Ariz. 190 , 367 P.2d 230 (1961); Galbraith v. Galbraith, 88 Ariz. 358 , 356 P.2d 1023 (1960). However, as noted in Andro v. Andro, 97 Ariz. at 305 , 400 P.2d at 107 -108: “ ‘It is, * * * the rule that as a condition to modification of custodial provisions of the original divorce decree there must be shown á change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the children. (Citing case.). In such matters pertaining to custody the best interest of the child is the primary consideration of the court; so where a change of custody is sought, it must be shown that the welfare of the child will be advanced by the change. (Citing cases.) The trial court is in the best position to judge what will be in the best interest of the child and this Court will not disturb that judgment on appeal unless it clearly appears the trial court has abused its discretion. (Citing case.) But if the record shows an abuse of sound judicial discretion this Court will not hesitate to reverse or modify. (Citing cases.)’”

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

2. “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nicaise v. Sundaram