Ford v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 federal appellate · 9 district · 158 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 291 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(E)xperience has shown that the question of custody, so vital to a child's happiness and well-being, frequently cannot be left to the discretion of parents.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 16 Va. App. 314 - Verrocchio v. Verrocchio · 321 N.J. Super. 482 - Watkins v. Nelson

2. “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. E. E. B. v. D. A. · Eeb v. Da

3. ““Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides that 'Full Faith and Credit shall be given each State to the * * * judicial Proceedings of every other. State.’ Without doubt the provision of the: Missouri decree awarding the custody of the children to their father was within the protection of this constitutional, clause and entitled to recognition outside of Missouri, and cannot be questioned with respect to facts on which the decree was based. But the Missouri custodial decree is res judicata of only what was at issue in said cause- and adjudicated by that court, and it is protected by the constitutional provision only to that extent. Judicial decrees and orders providing for the custody of minor children are not unalterable finalities, even though they may appear so on their face, but are provisional and subject to change as future conditions and circumstances may require in the best interests and for the welfare of the children. When such changes or modifications are later made by a court of the state, ■which rendered the original decree, or by a court of another state, such subsequent decrees or judgments will not be in contravention of the constitutional command, or attacks on the earlier judicial proceeding. “We must accept the record before us as establishing that there were changes, subsequent to the rendition of the Missouri decree, in the conditions and circumstances surrounding the children to sustain and justify the decree of the trial cou”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 182 So. 2d 119 - State ex rel. McClary v. Stacy