Snedaker v. Snedaker’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. “Other things being equal, prime consideration should be given to the mother of a child of tender years in custody proceedings... . However, when the evidence reveals that `other things' are not equal then the primary consideration accorded the mother is subservient to the best interests and welfare of the child. * * * * * * When, as here, there is a dearth of evidence in support of the position of the mother, as opposed to overwhelming evidence indicating that it is for the best interests of the child for its custody to be awarded to its father, any `presumption,' `prime consideration,' or `natural edge,' abiding with the mother is overcome and custody should be awarded to that parent in whose custody the best interests of the child will be served, in light of the evidence adduced. " (emphasis theirs) Here we come to the inescapable conclusion that the doctrine of tender years has been misapplied as a mandate requiring the award of custody to the mother. Florida Statute § 61.13(2)(b) provides: "Upon considering all relevant factors, the father of the child shall be given the same consideration as the mother in determining custody.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 375 So. 2d 1082 - Marshall v. Marshall

2. “"Other things being equal, prime consideration should be given to the mother of a child of tender years in custody proceedings... . However, when the evidence reveals that `other things' are not equal then the primary consideration accorded the mother is subservient to the best interests and welfare of the child. * * * * * * When, as here, there is a dearth of evidence in support of the position of the mother, as opposed to overwhelming evidence indicating that it is for the best interests of the child for its custody to be awarded to its father, any `presumption,' `prime consideration,' or `natural edge,' abiding with the mother is overcome and custody should be awarded to that parent in whose custody the best interests of the child will be served, in light of the evidence adduced. " (emphasis theirs)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 375 So. 2d 1082 - Marshall v. Marshall