Leonard v. Paxson’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably In Re AIU Insurance Co. (2004), Proffer v. Yates (1987)
25 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 Fidelity Union Life Insurance Company v. Evans · Cassidy v. Fuller · Brines v. McIlhaney · Arias v. Spector · Brod v. Baker
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a petition for further action concerning the child or a motion to modify ... is filed in a court having continuing jurisdiction of the suit, on the timely motion of any party, the court shall transfer the proceeding to the county where venue is proper on the basis of either a supporting uncontroverted affidavit or after a hearing when a controverting affidavit contesting the venue has been filed.... If the child resided in another county for six months or longer, the court shall transfer the proceeding to that county.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Proffer v. Yates · Revey v. Peek“The underlying proceeding is a motion to modify the child support provisions of a divorce decree, not a suit on a contract. Sheryl does not allege that Morton has breached the Agreement, nor does she seek a money judgment for support payments due her under the contract. In this situation, the provisions of article 1995(5) are not applicable. Instead, the mandatory venue and transfer provisions of the Family Code control and cannot be negated by contract. To hold otherwise would defeat the legislature’s intent that matters affecting the parent-child relationship be heard in the county where the child resides, and would promote forum shopping by contract. Cassidy v. Fuller, 568 S.W.2d [845] at 846.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the fixing of venue by contract, except in such instances as permitted by Article 1995, § 5, is invalid and cannot be the subject of a private contract.... Article 4656 placed venue for an injunction suit in the county in which defendant Evans had his domicile; we hold that a variance of that statute is not the subject of a private contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.