Ex Parte Couch’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
170 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 171 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 676 So. 2d 1322 - Ex Parte Bryowsky (1996), 646 So. 2d 46 - Ex Parte Perkins (1994)
170 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 · 410 So. 2d 416 - Ex Parte Berryhill · 479 So. 2d 1261 - Murphy v. Murphy · Couch v. Couch
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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the case before us, the parents had joint legal custody, but there was a previous judicial determination that placed primary physical custody with the mother. Therefore, the trial court was correct in applying the McLendon standard and requiring the father to show that a change in custody would materially promote the welfare and best interest of the child, offsetting the disruptive effect of uprooting the child.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. D.N. v. J.H. · Tjh v. Snf“`Where the parties agree to joint legal custody and shared physical custody of the children without a judicial determination preferring either parent, "custody [is] appropriately determined by the trial court according to what [is] in the `best interest' of the children.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The Court of Civil Appeals properly held, as a matter of law, that the trial court had applied the wrong standard to the facts of this case. Having so held, that court should have reversed the judgment and remanded the cause to allow the trial court to make its determination from the disputed evidence, using the correct standard.... "`. . . .' ". . . . "... The trial court is in the best position to make a factual determinationit hears the evidence and observes the witnesses. "Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court. "`. . . .' ". . . . "Only where the findings are not supported by the evidence and are clearly erroneous should an appellate court decide that the facts are not as the trial court found them to be. The fact that the trial court clearly applied the incorrect law to the facts does not authorize the appellate courts to examine the evidence de novo. "”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cbb v. Jsd · C.B.B. v. J.S.D.
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.