Joe v. Lebow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 state decisions

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

1. “(1) The age and sex of the child. (2) The wishes of the child’s parents. (3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child’s wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age. (4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with: (A) the child’s parents; (B) the child’s siblings; and (C) any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest. (5) The child’s adjustment to home, school, and community. (6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved. (7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either parent. (8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian, and if the evidence is sufficient, the court shall consider the factors described in section 2.5(b) of this chapter.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tasima M. Collyear-Bell v. Dennis T. Bell (mem. dec.) · Heagy v. Kean

2. ““Upon reading the revised statutes, however, it is clear that the legislature has deleted or modified certain language which embodied the strict standard. Most notably, the statutory language requiring that the changed circumstances ‘make the existing custody order unreasonable’ has been deleted. Further, the requirement that there be substantial and continuing changes in the ‘circumstances’ has been modified, so that the court need now find only a ‘substantial change’ in one or more of the factors which the court considers in determining the child’s best interests. When a statute contains language which is deleted by the legislature, we presume that the legislature intended the deletion to represent a change in the law..'.. We find from these rules strong support for [the] argument that the legislature ‘deliberately lessened the [strict] standard’ for modification.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Newsome v. State · Dwyer v. Wynkoop

3. “a trial court need no longer find that an existing custody order is unreasonable in order to modify custody, so long as a 'substantial change' in one of the enumerated factors has occurred, and the trial court finds as well that modification would be in the child's best interests.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Rea v. Shroyer