Pitts v. Sutter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`The [UCCJA] encourages continuing jurisdiction by a court which entered an original custody judgment unless that court presently is without jurisdiction under Section 3 [of the act] or has declined to assume jurisdiction.' Pitts v. Sutter, 408 So.2d 105, 110 (Ala.Civ.App.1981).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Db v. Pb · Moore v. Perez

2. “"(a) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if:”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matter of McKenzie · 725 So. 2d 986 - Merryman v. Merryman

3. “It (a sister state's judgment) can be enforced by habeas corpus, contempt, injunction, a civil action, a petition or motion, or any other method available under the law of this state for the enforcement of a custody judgment rendered by a court of this state. State ex rel., Butler v. Morgan , 34 Or. App. 393 , 578 P.2d 814 (1978). . . . A prompt hearing should be held as to whether the Act requires that the sister state's custody judgment be recognized and enforced. The party seeking to enforce the judgment of another state normally would meet their initial burden of proof at that limited hearing by the introduction into evidence of a properly authenticated copy of the judgment relied upon. At such hearing, the parent contesting the foreign judgment would have the right to specifically plead in defense thereto and to present evidence as to the nonexistence of jurisdiction of the sister state rendering the judgment . . . Ordinarily, at such initial and limited hearing, the circumstances of the child or children is not then an issue before the court and evidence pertaining thereto is not admissible. State ex rel. Butler v. Morgan, supra. Should the trial court determine after such hearing that such a judgment must be recognized, the court would then enforce the other state's judgment without further proceedings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 437 So. 2d 122 - Mitchell v. Mitchell