Larson v. Larson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Courts have no power in awarding custody of minor children other than that provided by statute. The only provision in the statutes for awarding custody of minor children to an institution or to a person other than the parents is that which is applicable to cases where both the mother and father are found unfit to have custody.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 193 Wis. 2d 649 - In Re Custody of HSHK · Holtmann v. Knott

2. ““This court is firmly committed to the principle that the findings of fact and orders of the trial court concerning the custody of minor children in divorce actions will not be set aside or reversed unless clearly against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence, or unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. “ ‘Custody matters are highly discretionary and the rule is well established that the trial court’s determination will not be upset in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.’ Belisle v. Belisle (1965), 27 Wis. (2d) 317, 321, 322, 134 N. W. (2d) 491 . “ ‘As has been repeatedly held by this court, the matter of the custody of children in divorce actions is a matter peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the trial court, who has seen the parties, had an opportunity to observe their conduct, and is in much better position to determine where the best interests of the child lie than is an appellate court/ Adams v. Adams (1922), 178 Wis. 522, 525 , 190 N. W. 359 ; Hamachek v. Hamachek (1955), 270 Wis. 194, 202 , 70 N. W. (2d) 595 . “In Hamachek v. Hamachek, supra, at pages 198, 199, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice FAIRCHILD, we stated: “ ‘The welfare of the child is, of course, the prime consideration of a court in granting or changing the custody of any child. Acheson v. Acheson, 235 Wis. 610 , 294 N. W. 6 . The law involved here is that whenever the welfare of any child will be promoted thereby, the court granting the decree of divorce “shall always ha”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 64 Wis. 2d 110 - Heiting v. Heiting

3. “In questions involving the determination of what is in the best interests of the children, whether in an adoption case or a divorce case, it must be recognized that the trial court has the chance to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses, and its determination of the question of what is in the best interests of the children may not easily be overturned by this court. Thus, in Larson v. Larson, [ 30 Wis. 2d 291, 296 , 140 N.W.2d 230 (1966),] a divorce case, we said: This court is firmly committed to the principle that the findings of fact and orders of the trial court concerning the custody of minor children in divorce actions will not be set aside or reversed unless clearly against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence, or unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Custody matters are highly discretionary and the rule is well established that the trial court's determination will not be upset in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. Belisle v. Belisle, 27 Wis. 2d 317, 321, 322 , 134 N.W.2d 491 (1965). As has been repeatedly held by this court, the matter of the custody of children in divorce actions is a matter peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the trial court, who has seen the parties, had an opportunity to observe their conduct, and is in much better position to determine where the best interests of the child lie than is an appellate court. Adams v. Adams, 178 Wis. 522, 525 , 190 N.W. 359 (1922); Hamachek v. Hamachek, 270 Wis. 194, 2”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Douglas L. v. Arika B.