Sims v. Sims’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Ex Parte JP (1994), 911 So. 2d 719 - Ex Parte Russell (2005)
58 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 455 So. 2d 863 - Ex Parte McLendon · 157 Ind. App. 385 - Farley v. Farley · 435 So. 2d 1235 - Ex Parte Jim Skinner Ford, Inc. · 351 So. 2d 605 - Willette v. Bannister · 423 So. 2d 239 - Sizemore v. Sizemore
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]emporary custody awards are generally intended to last until one of the parties petitions the court to modify the [order or judgment] granting temporary custody. Pendente lite orders, on the other hand, are generally entered only during the pendency of the litigation, and are usually replaced by a final order or [judgment] which is entered at the end of the litigation. Therefore, a pendente lite order, whether entered ex parte or after notice and hearing, clearly envisions a temporary disposition of custody pending a later final determination of the custody dispute. A second distinction that can be drawn between temporary custody awards and pendente lite awards lies in the manner by which the two orders may be reviewed.... "A third reason that pendente lite orders are distinguishable from temporary orders is that a trial court's judgment in a final [order or judgment] following a pendente lite order must be determined on the basis of evidence submitted to the court in support of the final [order or judgment]. It cannot be based on evidence of changed circumstances submitted in a hearing to modify a temporary [order or judgment]. Thus, the burden of proof in final [orders or judgments] following pendente lite orders is different from the burden of proof required to modify a previous temporary [order or judgment]."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Grant v. Grant · A.L. v. S.J.“[A]s a matter of law . . . pendente lite orders, unlike other temporary orders or decrees, do not activate the McLendon rule.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A third reason that pendente lite orders are distinguishable from temporary orders is that a trial court's judgment in a final [order or judgment] following a pendente lite order must be determined on the basis of evidence submitted to the court in support of the final [order or judgment]. It cannot be based on evidence of changed circumstances submitted in a hearing to modify a temporary [order or judgment]. Thus, the burden of proof in final [orders or judgments] following pendente lite orders is different from the burden of proof required to modify a previous temporary [order or judgment].”
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.