61 Ohio App. 2d 111 - Whaley v. Whaley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If immoral conduct is presumed to be harmful, the party seeking a change of custody need not show a change of circumstances which is harmful to the child — that is presumed. The burden of proof on that party is to show ‘immorality,’ and impliedly to prove a moral norm which the custodial party has violated. Disregarding the momentous constitutional implications of such a standard, and in light of the diversity of religious and moral practice in this country we find it simply an unworkable standard beyond the realm of ligitimate [sic] judicial inquiry.” Id. at 117 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 10 Ohio App. 3d 63 - Kraus v. Kraus · 3 Ohio App. 3d 198 - In Re Rex

2. “The principle of finality is particularly necessary in custody cases because of the special needs of a child. A child needs a continuing relationship with the person who cares for him, and any time that continuity is broken the child suffers.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shioji v. Shioji · 10 Ohio App. 3d 63 - Kraus v. Kraus

3. “" ' " * * * The direct adverse impact approach to custody * * * is the soundest, provided certain limitations on its application are adopted. Courts should consider only present impact. Before depriving a sexually active parent of custody, courts should demand preponderance proof that the parent's conduct is having or is probably having an effect on the child and that the effect is actually harmful. Without such proof, the fact of nonmarital sexual conduct should not justify a custody denial or change. Moreover, on the issue of harmfulness, the primary focus should be on the child’s present physical and psychological welfare and developmental potential. Unless accompanied by clearly adverse collateral consequences, moral impact should be ignored.” ' " (Emphasis deleted.) Inscoe at 413-414 , 700 N.E.2d at 81 , quoting Whaley v. Whaley (1978), 61 Ohio App.2d 111, 119 , 15 O.O.3d 136, 141 , 399 N.E.2d 1270, 1275-1276 , quoting Lauerman, Nonmarital Sexual Conduct and Child Custody (1977), 46 U.Cin.L.Rev. 647, 681. See, also, Whaley (stating that a court's inquiry into the moral conduct of a parent is limited to a determination of the effect of such conduct on the child).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 143 Ohio App. 3d 1 - Beaver v. Weaver