555 So. 2d 698 - Phillips v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably 25 So. 3d 274 - Lowrey v. Lowrey (2009), 572 So. 2d 841 - Bell v. Bell (1990)
25 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 453 So. 2d 1294 - Tucker v. Tucker · 511 So. 2d 489 - Pace v. Owens · 435 So. 2d 697 - Kavanaugh v. Carraway · 498 So. 2d 1218 - Dunaway v. Busbin · 455 So. 2d 778 - Torrence v. Moore
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the moving party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, after the entry of the judgment sought to be modified, there has been a material change in circumstances which adversely affects the welfare of the child. Second if such an adverse change has been shown, the moving party must show by like evidence that the best interest of the child requires the change of custody.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the `totality of the circumstances' must be considered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This Court requires more than a verbal announcement of good law. It requires an adherence to and application of that law. A reading of the Chancellor's opinion leaves the strong impression that he was punishing Mrs. Phillips for acts of which he did not approve. * * * * * * The Chancellor would distinguish Kavanaugh , which holds a parent's indiscretion cannot be the sole ground to change custody. He stated that the mother in that case showed she was remorseful. This Court in Kavanaugh was saying that even if what the mother did was a moral error, there still had to be an adverse effect on the children. The Chancellor's requiring remorse has nothing to do with the `adverse affect and best interest of Justin.' The issue is the best interest of Justin, not the alleged indiscretion of his mother.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Jones
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.