A CAB, LLC v. MURRAY’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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “See, e.g., Herzog, No. 73160, 2018 WL 4781619 , at ; Bohannon, No. 69719, 2017 WL 1080066 , at . COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 23 be in need of protection, none of which are present here, thereby allowing removal from the home by child protection authorities). And this was all done without the district court considering any less restrictive and financially feasible option, such as supervised parenting time. In sum, the district court erred by: (1) failing to consider a less restrictive parenting time arrangement; (2) failing to adequately explain why the greater restriction was necessary;15 (3) failing to make findings how true primary physical custody was not in H.R.'s best interest; and (4) implementing an almost unachievable plan with no ending, review, or even status check date, and accordingly has undermined Nevada's public policy, issued an order inconsistent with Nevada jurisprudence, and violated Maggie's parental rights. As a result, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it effectively awarded Jason sole physical custody of H.R. Thus, we reverse the parenting time allocation and direct the district court, on remand, to enter a parenting time order consistent with Nevada jurisprudence and this opinion. Delegation of substantive decision-making authority Maggie argues that it is impossible to satisfy Dr. Collins's treatment plan, as Maggie cannot afford to see her twice a month for an 15”

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