Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 CALAPP2D 185 - Moon v. Moon

Moon v. Moon’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
3
states following
June 1991
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 1991 · most notably 53 Cal. 2d 455 - Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Employees, Laundry Drivers & Helpers Local No. 88 (1960), United Community Church v. Garcin (1991)

35 state decisions

130194419501960197019801990decided

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 Foster v. Foster · 16 Cal. 2d 190 - Prouty v. Prouty · 49 Cal. App. 2d 581 - Washburn v. Washburn · Fewel v. Fewel · 5 Cal. App. 2d 655 - People v. Thompson

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

  1. “Undoubtedly the trial court had authority to change its order respecting the custody of Charla (Civ. Code, 138.) Because of her tender years, 'other things being equal' she should be in the custody of the plaintiff, her mother. (Civ. Code, 138.) The court having originally determined that she should be in her mother's custody, some change in conditions or some unusual circumstance had to be shown to justify an alteration of that provision. (Foster v. Foster (1937), 8 Cal.2d 719, 726 [ 68 P.2d 719 ]; Washburn v. Washburn (1942), 46 Cal.App.2d 581 , 587 [ 122 P.2d 96 ].) One who seeks a modification of an existing custody order has the burden of proving that conditions have so changed that a modification is justified (Prouty v. Prouty (1940), 16 Cal.2d 190, 193 [ 105 P.2d 295 ]), and the paramount purpose of the whole proceeding is to serve the best interests of the child. (Prouty v. Prouty, supra, p. 195 .) The sum of the matter is that the evidentiary support for the order taking three year old Charla from her mother's custody and placing her in that of her father, must be adequate, if the order is to stand.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.