Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 541 SO2D 708 - DeCamp v. Hein

DeCamp v. Hein’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
3
states following
October 2004
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 2004

23 state decisions

150198919902000decided

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 144 N.J. Super. 200 - D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio · 322 So. 2d 22 - Dinkel v. Dinkel · D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio · Giachetti v. Giachetti · 474 So. 2d 306 - Matilla v. Matilla

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

  1. “(emphasis supplied) Relevant facts should obviously include, at least in part, some consideration of the tender years doctrine. It is true that the doctrine can no longer be dispositive because the 1983 amendment to the statute added the”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1. Whether the move would be likely to improve the general quality of life for both the primary residential spouse and the children. 2. Whether the motive for seeking the move is for the express purpose of defeating visitation. 3. Whether the custodial parent, once out of the jurisdiction, will be likely to comply with any substitute visitation arrangements. 4. Whether the substitute visitation will be adequate to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child or children and the noncustodial parent. 5. Whether the cost of transportation is financially affordable by one or both of the parents. 6. Whether the move is in the best interests of the child. (This sixth requirement we believe is a generalized summary of the previous five.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The court should not insist that the advantages of the move be sacrificed and the opportunity for a better and more comfortable life style for the [custodial parent] and children be forfeited solely to maintain weekly visitation by the [non-custodial parent] where reasonable alternative visitation is available and where the advantages of the move are substantial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.