Brown v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2013
20 state decisions
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 161 Ind. App. 388 - Hendrickson v. Binkley · Marshall v. Reeves · Whitman v. Whitman · Marriage of Poret v. Martin · 163 Ind. App. 346 - Franks v. Franks
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Because child custody proceedings implicate the fundamental relationship between parent and child, Indiana courts recognize that procedural due process must be provided to protect the substantive rights of the parties. A prompt hearing is especially essential in a custody case where the parties are dueling for a child’s affections, and the longer a delay, the more chance one party has to influence the child. When the parent who has the opportunity to exert influence has received temporary custody in an ex parte proceeding, there is even a greater reason for having a prompt hearing.... Because a delay in custody hearing may increase the chances of a custodial parent eventually being deprived of custody, it is not reasonable for a custody hearing to follow an ex parte transfer of custody by two months.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wilcox v. Wilcox · Pence v. Pence“only upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the existing custody order unreasonable.”
2 later decisions 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.