Holsinger v. Holsinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Neither parent is entitled to the custody of a child as a matter of right. ‘Under the statute (Civ. Code, §138(2)) each is equally entitled to custody and no showing or finding of unfitness is necessary to enable the court to award custody to one or the other in accordance with what, in its sound discretion, is deemed the best interests of the child.’ (Davis v. Davis, 41 Cal.2d 563, 565 [ 261 P.2d 729 ].) ‘It is the welfare of the child and not the shortcomings of the respective parties which is determinative. ’ (Clarke v. Clarke, 35 Cal.2d 259, 262 [ 217 P.2d 401 ].) “‘ It is the settled rule that, in determining who should have the custody of the minor children of the parties to divorce actions, a very broad discretion is vested in the trial courts. It is only when a clear case of abuse of said discretion is made out that this court will interfere with the deter mination of the trial court on appeal. ’ (Prouty v. Prouty, 16 Cal.2d 190, 191 [ 105 P.2d 295 ] ; accord: Gantner v. Gantner, 39 Cal.2d 272, 275 [ 246 P.2d 923 ]; Clarke v. Clarke, 35 Cal.2d 259, 261 [ 217 P.2d 401 ].) 1 [T]he correct rule for a trial court to follow when considering the modification of a custody decree, is: “The court, in revising and modifying its decree, proceeds upon new facts considered in connection with the facts formerly established, the change of circumstances, the conduct of the parties, and the best interests of the child.” ’ (Prouty v. Prouty, 16 Cal.2d 190, 195 [ 105 P.2d 295 ]; accord”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adleson v. Adleson