Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 459 SO2D 616 - Donaldson v. Keller

Donaldson v. Keller’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
May 1985
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Fulco v. Fulco · 455 So. 2d 1374 - Turner v. Turner · 390 So. 2d 1325 - Bordelon v. Bordelon · 383 So. 2d 1231 - Cleeton v. Cleeton · 410 So. 2d 1105 - Johnston v. McCullough

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. “(a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The legislature, furthermore, went beyond the mere establishment of a guiding list, and established the rebuttable presumption that joint custody arrangements would be in the child's best interest. C.C. 146(C). This presumption has caused some confusion. Some lower courts seem to believe that the article requires granting joint custody. Such is not the case; the article clearly provides that there is only a presumption in favor of joint custody, and that it may be rebutted upon a proper showing that a different arrangement is in the child's best interest. Such a showing now must include a consideration of eleven specific, enumerated factors, plus any `other factor' which the trial court deems to be relevant. C.C. 146(C)(2)(a)-(1). Article 146 provides further that `the burden of proof that joint custody would not be in the child's best interest shall be on the parent requesting sole custody.' C.C. 146(A)(2). This provision does not create any extraordinary burden on the party requesting sole custody. "As in any matter in which there is a rebuttable presumption, the burden rests with the party challenging the presumption to convince the fact-finder that his proposed conclusion is more correct than the presumed one. A presumption does not have any probative value, but merely provides the fact-finder that his proposed conclusion is more correct than the presumed one. A presumption does not have any probative value, but merely provides the fact-finder with a conclusion in the ab”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the harsh realities of the parents' often bitter, vengeful and typically highly emotional conflict.”
    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.