Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 645 P2D 1039 - Magers v. Magers

Magers v. Magers’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
March 1993
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Holt v. District Court for the Twentieth Judicial District, Ardmore, Carter County · Roberts v. District Court of Larimer Cty. · Shelby-Downard Asphalt Co. v. Enyart · Perry v. Ponder · 40 Or. App. 257 - Smith v. Smith

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

  1. “A. A court which has jurisdiction under this act to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum to make a custody determination under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. B. A finding of inconvenient forum may be made upon the court's own motion or upon motion of a party or a guardian ad litem or other representative of the child. C. In determining if it is an inconvenient forum, the court shall consider if it is in the interest of the child that another state assume jurisdiction. For this purpose it may take into account the following factors, among others: 1. If another state is or recently was the child's home state; 2. If another state has a closer connection with the child and his family or with the child and one or more of the contestants; 3. If substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships is more readily available in another state; 4. If the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and 5. If the exercise of jurisdiction by a court of this state would contravene any of the purposes stated in Section 2 of this act. D. Before determining whether to decline or retain jurisdiction the court may communicate with a court of another state and exchange information pertinent to the assumption of jurisdiction by either”
    2 later decisions 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.