Steele v. Neeman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) An order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment; or (b) An order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding; or (c) An order made upon a summary application in an action after judgment; or (d) An order, including a conditional order, granting a new trial on the grounds stated in Rule 59(a)(4) and (5), Wyo. R. Civ. P.; if an appeal is taken from such an order, the judgment shall remain final and in effect for the purposes of appeal by another party; or (e) Interlocutory orders and decrees of the district courts which: (1) Grant, continue, or modify injune-tions, or dissolve injunctions, or refuse to dissolve or modify injunctions; or (2) Appoint receivers, or issue orders to wind up receiverships, or to take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as directing sales or other disposition of property.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Seg v. Gdk · In Re KRA

2. “The resolution of the jurisdictional issue by the district court did not determine the merits of the controversy. This is self-evident from the fact that the very order cited by Father also sets the merits of the controversy — his petition to modify visitation- — for hearing. Since that order did not determine the merits of the controversy and resolve all outstanding issues, it was not a final, appealable order under W.R.A.P. 1.05(a).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Interest of Kra v. Zwa · In Re KRA

3. “(a) The general purposes of this act are: (i) To avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody which have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from state to state with harmful effects on their well-being; (ii) To promote cooperation with the courts of other states to the end that a custody decree is rendered in that state which can best decide the case in the interest of the child; (iii) To assure that litigation concerning the custody of a child take place ordinarily in the state with which the child and his family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning his care, protection, training and personal relationships is most readily available, and that courts of this state decline the exercise of jurisdiction when the child and his family have a closer connection with another state; (iv) To discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child; (v) To deter abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody awards; (vi) To avoid relitigation of custody decisions of other states in this state insofar as feasible; (vii) To facilitate the enforcement of custody decrees of other states; (viii) To promote and expand the exchange of information and other forms of mutual assistance between the courts of this state and those of other states concerned with t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. NMC v. JLW Ex Rel. NAW