Meehan-Greer v. Greer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'when a material factor deserving significant weight is ignored.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jacobson v. Kidd · Martin v. Hart

2. “.... (i) The quality of the relationship each child has with each parent; (ii) The ability of each parent to provide adequate care for each child throughout each period of responsibility, including arranging for the child's care by others as needed; (iii) The relative competency and fitness of each parent; (iv) Each parent's willingness to accept all responsibilities of parenting, including a willingness to accept care for each child at specified times and to relinquish care to the other parent at specified times; (v) How the parents and each child can best maintain and strengthen a relationship with each other; (vi) How the parents and each child interact and communicate with each other and how such interaction and communication may be improved; (vii) The ability and willingness of each parent to allow the other to provide care without intrusion, respect the other parent's rights and responsibilities, including the right to privacy; (viii) Geographic distance between the parents' residences; (ix) The current physical and mental ability of each parent to care for each child; (x) Any other factors the court deems necessary and relevant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martin v. Hart

3. “The first step requires a showing that there has been "a material change in circumstances since the entry of the order in question." § 20-2-204(c). Because of the res judicata effect afforded custody orders, such a finding is a threshold requirement. Hertzler v. Hertzler, 908 P.2d 946 , 949-50 (Wyo.1995). The district court does not properly acquire jurisdiction to reopen an existing custody order until there has been a showing of "a substantial or material change of circumstances which outweigh society's interest in applying the doctrine of res judicata" to a custody order. Kreuter v. Kreuter, 728 P.2d 1129 , 1130 (Wyo.1986). In short, unless the district court finds a material change in circumstances, it cannot proceed to the second step-determining whether a modification would be in the best interests of the child.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jacobson v. Kidd