Dunlap v. Dunlap’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In her argument, Leeanne additionally notes that Tobie does not attend church when residing with her father. It is clear, however, that Indiana specifically leaves the choice of religious training to the custodial parent. IND.CODE § 81-1-11.5-21(b). Although David and Tobie presently do not attend church, there has been no suggestion that he would prohibit Tobie from doing so. Leeanne specifically admits that David has had no objections to Tobie's baptism nor to her attending church. The facts and issues present in support of Leeanne's petition to modify custody do not show that the present custody arrangement is unreasonable nor that there are changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to warrant a modification of the original custody order.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Mobley

2. “When parties litigate a matter in our courts they and we are constrained to the evidence admitted. On appeal it is that evidence to which we must apply the law. Where that party bearing the burden of proof fails to sustain his or her contention, either because there was no evidence available on a critical issue, or because the evidence failed to sustain that party's contention, there is a failure of proof. Upon the evidence presented in the case at bar, I am constrained to agree with the majority that no change in cur-cumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the existing order unreasonable was established. I therefore agree the judgment must be reversed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Mobley

3. “[iln order to deprive a parent of the custody of a child because of sexual misconduct, the misconduct must be shown to have an adverse effect upon the welfare of the child”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McIntyre v. Medaris