Linder v. Linder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

145 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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) For purposes of this section: (1) “Child” means a minor under the age of eighteen (18) of whom the custodian has control and who is: (A) The grandchild of the petitioner; or (B) The great-grandchild of the petitioner; (2) “Counseling” means individual counseling, group counseling, or other intervention method; (3) “Custodian” means the custodial parent of the child with the authority to grant or deny grandparental visitation; (4) “Mediation service” means any formal or informal mediation; and (5) “Petitioner” means any individual who may petition for visitation rights under this section. (b) A grandparent or great-grandparent may petition a circuit court of this state for reasonable visitation rights with respect to his or her grandchild or grandchildren or great-grandchild or great-grandchildren under this section if: (1) The marital relationship between the parents of the child has been severed by death, divorce, or legal separation; (2) The child is illegitimate and the petitioner is a maternal grandparent of the illegitimate child; or (3) The child is illegitimate, the petitioner is a paternal grandparent of the illegitimate child, and paternity has been established by a court of competent jurisdiction. (c) (1) There is a rebuttable presumption that a custodian’s decision denying or limiting visitation to the petitioner is in the best interest of the child. (2) To rebut the presumption, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following: (A) Th”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walchli v. Morris · Oldham v. Morgan

2. “[T]he interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children ... is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, ... we held that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the education of their own.” Two years later, ... we again held that the “liberty of parents and guardians” includes the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” We explained ... that “[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” We returned to the subject ..., and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Troeskyn v. Herrington · 2012 Ark. App. 403 - Bowen v. Bowen

3. “Custody matters, however, are different when the doctrine of res judicata is called into play. When the matter is a custody issue, our court takes a more flexible approach to res judicata. We recognize, for example, that custody orders are subject to modification in order to respond to changed circumstances and the best interest of the child.... For example, in Tucker v. Tucker, 195 Ark. 632, 636 , 113 S.W.2d 508, 508 (1938), we said: The judgment of a chancery court in this state, awarding the custody of an infant child to one of the parents, or to any other person, is a final judgment, from which an appeal lies, but it is not res judicata in the same or another court of this state involving the custody of the same child, where it is shown that the conditions under which the former decree was made have changed and that the best interest of said child demand a reconsideration of said order or decree.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hunt v. Perry · 99 Ark. App. 277 - Chiolak v. Chiolak