44 Kan. App. 2d 235 - Harrison v. TAUHEED’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(i) The length of time that the child has been under the actual care and control of any person other than a parent and the circumstances relating thereto; “(ii) the desires of the child’s parents as to custody or residency; “(iii) the desires of the child as to the child’s custody or residency; “(iv) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with parents, siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interests; “(v) the child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school and community; “(vi) the willingness and ability of each parent to respect and appreciate the bond between the child and the other parent and to allow for a continuing relationship between the child and the other parent; “(vii) evidence of spousal abuse; “(viii) whether a parent is subject to the registration requirements of the Kansas offender registration act, K.S.A. 22-4901, et seq., and amendments thereto, or any similar act in any other state, or under military or federal law; “(ix) whether a parent has been convicted of abuse of a child, K.S.A. 21-3609, and amendments thereto; “(x) whether a parent is residing with an individual who is subject to registration requirements of the Kansas offender registration act, K.S.A. 22-4901, etseq., and amendments thereto, or any similar act in any other state, or under military or federal law; and “(xi) whether a parent is residing with an individual who has been convicted of abuse of a child, K.S.A. 21-3609, and amendments thereto”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harrison v. Tauheed

2. ““[Mother] was not questioned as to her religious beliefs concerning medical treatment, and the evidence of her beliefs is sparse. Assuming, however, that her religion does discourage or prohibit the use of drugs or medications, or treatment by physicians, is that a valid reason to change custody? Christian Science, a denomination with wide membership, has similar teachings; it discourages as unnecessary the use of drugs or treatment by physicians; yet though such beliefs may be ‘unorthodox’ to the trial judge, they are constitutionally protected and form no basis for denying or changing custody.” (Emphasis added.) Beebe, 226 Kan. at 602 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harrison v. Tauheed

3. ““Our review of the trial court’s memorandum decision convinces us the correct legal standard and statutory factors were applied in this case. In particular, in its ‘Summary of the Court’s ruling,’ the trial court explicitly stated that after weighing the evidence it had reached a conclusion to award Monica residential custody based on ‘[J.D.H.’s] best interests.’ ” Harrison, 44 Kan. App. 2d at 241 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harrison v. Tauheed