433 So. 2d 1015 - Nelson v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably State Ex Rel. D.S.K. v. Kasper (1990), 194 Cal. App. 3d 955 - People v. Beach (1987)
36 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Fry v. Ball · First Miami Development Corp. v. Schreiber · 383 So. 2d 1134 - Hegler v. Hegler · 252 So. 2d 809 - Lang v. Lang · Priscilla S. v. Albert B.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where a Florida court is presented with substantial evidence of imminent physical or emotional danger to the child upon the child's return to the custodial parent, it is, under the doctrine of parens patriae, empowered to issue a temporary protective order which will preserve the status quo for such limited time as is required to permit the petitioner to apply for a change of permanent custody to the state which has jurisdiction over such a petition under the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e think that to allow the non-custodial parent, such as the petitioner here, who has gained physical custody and control of the children in Florida through visitation, to vest jurisdiction in a Florida court by alleging past mistreatment and abuse in the domicile state on the part of the custodial parent would be to allow the emergency provision of section 61.1308(1)(c)2 to subsume all other jurisdictional provisions in total disregard of the purposes of the uniform child custody jurisdiction act. See Hricko v. Stewart, 99 Misc.2d 266 , 415 N.Y.S.2d 747 (1979) (emergency jurisdictional provision of Act should not be misused so as to defeat the purposes or objectives of the Act)... . (emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(3) Assure that litigation concerning the custody of a child takes place ordinarily in the state with which the child and his family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning his care, protection, training, and personal relationships is most readily available, and that courts of this state decline the exercise of jurisdiction when the child and his family have a closer connection with another state. ..... (5) Deter abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody awards.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.