316 So. 2d 453 - Morrison v. Morrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The appellant argues that the trial judge did not apply the proper standard of proof in this case ... The appellee argues that a standard of proof requiring overwhelming evidence of the commission of adultery is a far greater burden than that presently placed on the plaintiff in an adultery case by the jurisprudence. He submits that the only proof of adultery which would be overwhelming would be photographs of the parties in the act of intercourse. ... The jurisprudence of this state is to the effect that when circumstantial evidence is used to establish adultery, a prima facie case may be made out by showing facts or circumstances that lead fairly and necessarily to the conclusion that adultery has been committed as alleged in the petition. Coston v. Coston, 196 La. 1095 , 200 So. 474 (1941). The proof must be so convincing as to exclude all other reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt of adultery. Daigle v. Daigle, 222 So.2d 318 (La.App. 1st Cir.1969). In connection with the discussion of this issue, we note the great weight which is given to the trial judge's findings of fact in Louisiana. The language found in the opinion of Justice Tate in Canter v. Koehring Co., et al, 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973) is pertinent at this point. `When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's findings, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding in the abse”

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

2. “[A] judgment of divorce terminates awards for child support and alimony pendente lite made in a prior judgment of separation from bed and board. [Citations omitted.] Since the child support in the judgment of separation ... terminate^] with the judgment of divorce, it is immaterial whether there [is] any change of circumstances. In the divorce proceedings, the plaintiff [spouse] is seeking a new award for child support after divorce, not an increase in the previous award. It is not necessary ... to show any change in circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 73 Md. App. 473 - Payne v. Payne

3. “"The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children. Fulco v. Fulco, 259 La. 1122 , 254 So.2d 603 (1971). The general rule is that it is in the best interest of the children to grant custody to the mother, and this right of the mother to custody should not be denied unless she is morally unfit or otherwise unsuited to be given custody of the children."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vidrine v. Demourelle