Devine v. Martens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We review probate proceedings de novo, but we will not reverse a finding of fact by the circuit court unless it is clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. When reviewing the proceedings, we give due regard to the opportunity and superior position of the probate judge to determine the credibility of the witnesses.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Thomas · Graham v. Matheny

2. “it is not in a child's best interest to take custody from a natural parent who has rectified all issues related to his or her fitness, and grant custody to a third party, such as that child's grandparents.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Graham v. Matheny · 2011 Ark. App. 330 - Hicks v. Faith

3. “In our review, it is clear that Devine took significant action toward rectifying any issues that would keep her from retaining custody of her son. These are the very types of improvements that parents are encouraged to make in the best interests of their child or children, and Devine should not be disparaged for her efforts to improve her home and her parenting skills. Specifically, if, instead of the Martenses filing for guardianship of Syris, a dependency-neglect action had been instituted in this case, Devine would now be reunited with her son. She has already done everything that would have been asked of her. She has corrected every problem about which the circuit court expressed concern. It is true that she has done so because of the threat that her child might be removed from her custody, but such a motive is entirely appropriate when a parent is working toward reunification with his or her child.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Ark. App. 474 - Chase v. Arkansas Department of Human Services