Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 638 SO2D 1176 - Brazan v. Brazan

Brazan v. Brazan’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 2015

24 state decisions

110199420002010decided

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 455 So. 2d 1374 - Turner v. Turner · 404 So. 2d 963 - Stephenson v. Stephenson · Schelldorf v. Schelldorf · 460 So. 2d 1175 - Black v. Black · 457 So. 2d 321 - Peyton v. Peyton

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

  1. “If the spouse has not a sufficient income for maintenance pending suit for divorce, the judge may allow the claimant spouse, whether plaintiff or defendant, a sum for that spouse's support, proportioned to the needs of the claimant spouse and the means of the other spouse. [4]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “any resource from which the wants of life may be supplied,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) The love, affection, and other emotional ties between each party and the child; (2) The capacity and disposition of each party to give the child love, affection, and spiritual guidance and to continue the education and rearing of the child; (3) The capacity and disposition of each party to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, and other material needs; (4) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, adequate environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity of that environment; (5) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes; (6) The moral fitness of each party, insofar as it affects the welfare of the child; (7) The mental and physical health of each party; (8) The home, school, and community history of the child; (9) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express a preference; (10) The willingness and ability of each party to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other party; (11) The distance between the respective residences of the parties; and (12) The responsibility for the care and rearing of the child previously exercised by each party.”
    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.