65 Ark. App. 110 - Hollinger v. Hollinger’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Lewellyn v. Lewellyn (2002), 81 Ark. App. 292 - Carver v. May (2003)
66 state decisions
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 Jones v. Jones · 17 Ark. App. 253 - Watts v. Watts · Nichols v. Wray · 59 Ark. App. 108 - Turner v. Benson · 55 Ark. App. 6 - Schwarz v. Moody
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Chancery cases are tried de novo on appeal. Riley v. Riley, 45 Ark.App. 165 , 873 S.W.2d 564 (1994). We will not disturb a chancellor's findings unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Stone v. Steed, 54 Ark.App. 11 , 923 S.W.2d 282 (1996). Since the question of preponderance of the evidence turns largely on the credibility of the witnesses, we defer to the superior position of the chancellor. Watts v. Watts, 17 Ark.App. 253 , 707 S.W.2d 777 (1986). We know of no cases in which the superior position, ability, and opportunity of the chancellor to observe the parties carries as great a weight as those cases involving children. Id. A finding is clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Nichols v. Wray, 325 Ark. 326 , 925 S.W.2d 785 (1996).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We are cognizant that in Jones v. Jones, 326 Ark. 481 , 931 S.W.2d 767 (1996), the supreme court held that the remarriage of the father, standing alone, was not enough to support a change in circumstances because he was aware of his impending new marriage at the time of the divorce when he gave custody to his ex-wife. Such was not the case here. Appellee was not contemplating this current marriage at the time of the original decree when custody was given to the mother. Those particular facts are not the same as are before us today.”
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.