Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 643 So. 2d 478 - Muller v. Muller

643 So. 2d 478 - Muller v. Muller’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2010

20 state decisions

120199420002010decided

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 404 So. 2d 963 - Stephenson v. Stephenson · Bordelon v. Dauzat · 543 So. 2d 109 - Petersen v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. · Becker v. Becker · 606 So. 2d 1359 - Pahal v. Pahal

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

  1. “A. (1) In a proceeding in which joint custody is decreed, the court shall render a joint custody implementation order except for good cause shown. (2)(a) The implementation order shall allocate the time periods during which each parent shall have physical custody |4of the child so that the child is assured of frequent and continuing contact with both parents. (b) To the extent it is feasible and in the best interest of the child, physical custody of the children should be shared equally. (3) The implementation order shall allocate the legal authority and responsibility of the parents.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It has been well established that a trial judge may discretionarily sign a judgment based on reasons which differ substantially from previously stated oral reasons. Bordelon v. Dauzat, 389 So.2d 820 (La.App. 3d Cir.1980). A trial judge’s oral reasons for judgment do not constitute a final judgment. Therefore, prior to a final judgment a trial judge may, at his discretion, change the substance or the result of any interlocutory rulings, id. Moreover, since a trial judge may sign a final judgment that differs substantially from previously written reasons for judgment, a fortiori, a trial judge may sign a final judgment that differs from previously rendered oral reasons for judgment ...”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “To the extent feasible, physical custody of the children shall be shared equally.”
    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.