K.M.G. v. J.G.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A court’s analysis in considering whether to modify custody differs from its analysis when awarding original custody. For a determination of an original custody award, only the best interests of the child are considered. But, when a party is seeking to modify a custody arrangement, a court applies a two step process. A trial court must determine: 1) Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances following the divorce and custody determination, and; 2) Whether the changes of circumstances effect [sic] the child in such an adverse way that it compels or requires a change in the existing custody arrangement to further the best interests of the child.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Klein v. Larson · In Re KMG

2. “The court may not modify a prior custody order within the two-year period following the date of entry of an order establishing custody unless the court finds the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child and: a. The persistent and willful denial or interference with visitation; b. The child’s present environment may endanger the child’s physical or emotional health or impair the child’s emotional development; or c. The primary physical care of the child has changed to the other parent for longer than six months.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Hanson v. Hanson

3. “We will not set aside a correct result merely because an incorrect, more relaxed standard was applied, if the result is the same under the correct law and reasoning.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Lagro v. Lagro