37 So. 3d 174 - Marsh v. Smith’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. ““1. That the Motion for Contempt filed by the [father] was withdrawn, and the Motion for Temporary Custody filed by the [father] is now moot. “2. That the Court finds that the [mother] resides in Mobile County when the minor child is with her. “3. That the Court finds that there is not a material change in circumstances sufficient to modify custody; therefore both Motions to Modify Custody are hereby denied. “4. That the Court reaffirms the custody and visitation order as set out in paragraphs six, seven, eight, and nine of the Judgment of Divorce previously entered by this Court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 67 So. 3d 100 - Marsh v. Smith

2. ““did not require the mother to continue to exercise her visitation or custodial rights in Mobile County as a condition of maintaining joint custody of the child, nor did it otherwise place any restrictions on its reaffirmation of the custody and visitation provisions of the parties’ divorce judgment. Because nothing in the trial court’s judgment would prevent the mother from exercising her custodial periods with the child in Mississippi, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s judgment was responsive to the pleadings or faithful to the concerns underlying the passage of the Act.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 67 So. 3d 100 - Marsh v. Smith

3. ““In proceedings under this article unless there has been a determination that the party objecting to the change of the principal residence of the child has been found to have committed domestic violence or child abuse, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a change of principal residence of a child is not in the best interest of the child. The party seeking a change of principal residence of a child shall have the initial burden of proof on the issue. If that burden of proof is met, the burden of proof shifts to the non-relocating party.””

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