714 So. 2d 906 - Shaw v. Shaw’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably State, Department of Social Services v. L.T. (2006), 814 So. 2d 773 - Hoskins v. Hoskins (2002)
30 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 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco · 708 So. 2d 731 - Evans v. Lungrin · 492 So. 2d 1193 - Bergeron v. Bergeron · 661 So. 2d 706 - Warlick v. Warlick · 635 So. 2d 456 - Settle v. Settle
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(3) The domiciliary parent shall have authority to make all decisions affecting the child unless an implementation order provides otherwise. All major decisions made by the domiciliary parent concerning the child shall be subject to review by the court upon motion of the other parent. It shall be presumed that all major decisions made by the domiciliary parent are in the best interest of the child.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[s]o long as `the child is assured of frequent and continuing contact with both parents,' the primary goal of joint custody is met. Because of the trial court's mandate and great discretion for considering the best interest of the child, joint custody does not mean a fifty-fifty sharing of time on the strength of feasibility alone.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(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 of 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.”
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.