E.H.G. v. E.R.G.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In this appeal, this court considers whether a circuit court may constitutionally award grandparents visitation with their grandchildren over the objection of the children's fit, natural, custodial parents without providing clear and convincing evidence that the denial of such visitation would cause the children substantial harm. " The Alabama Grandparent Visitation Act "The Grandparent Visitation Act (`the Act'), Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-4.1, provides, in pertinent part: "`(b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, any grandparent may file an original action for visitation rights to a minor child if it is in the best interest of the minor child and one of the following conditions exist: "`. . . . "`(5) When the child is living with both biological parents, who are still married to each other, whether or not there is a broken relationship between either or both parents of the minor and the grandparent and either or both parents have used their parental authority to prohibit a relationship between the child and the grandparent. "`. . . . "`(d) Upon the filing of an original action . . ., the court shall determine if visitation by the grandparent is in the best interests of the child. Visitation shall not be granted if the visitation would endanger the physical health of the child or impair the emotional development of the child. In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider the following: "`(1) The willingness of the grandparent or grandparents ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Weldon v. Ballow · E.H.G. v. E.R.G.

2. “"Recognizing that we are not bound by the plurality opinions in [ Dodd v. Burleson, 932 So.2d 912 (Ala.Civ.App. 2005) (` Dodd I ')], [ Dodd v. Burleson, 967 So.2d 715 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (` Dodd II ')], and L.B.S. [v. L.M.S., 826 So.2d 178 (Ala.Civ.App.2002)], we hereby adopt the reasoning of Hawk [v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn.1993),] and the majority of cases from other jurisdictions by holding that a grandparent seeking visitation with a child over the objection of a fit, natural, custodial parent, as an initial matter, must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the denial of the requested visitation would harm the child. "In following Hawk and similar decisions, we do not intend to minimize the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren or the valuable contributions that that relationship may make to the development of the grandchild, to which the dissent refers. 73 So.3d at 628. As stated in R.S.C. [v. J.B.C., 812 So.2d 361 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) (plurality opinion)], supra : "`If a grandparent is physically, mentally, and morally fit, then a grandchild ordinarily will benefit from a relationship with that grandparent. That grandparents and grandchildren normally can be expected to have a special bond cannot be denied. Each can benefit from contact with the other. Among other things, the child can learn lessons of love, respect, responsibility, and family and community heritage.' " 812 So.2d at 365 . However, we must acknowledge that the statutory right of a gr”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. E.H.G. v. E.R.G. · 73 So. 3d 634 - Ex Parte Erg

3. “"As presently drafted, the Act requires a trial court in a grandparent-visitation case to consider `[o]ther relevant factors in the particular circumstances. . . .' Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-4.1(d)(6). Since we hold that a showing of harm to the child resulting from the denial of visitation is a prerequisite to any award of visitation under the Act, we conclude that subsection (d)(6) necessarily encompasses that showing as a `relevant factor' and that the Act is, therefore, facially valid. See L.B.S. [v. L.M.S .], 826 So.2d [178,] 185 [(Ala.Civ.App.2002)] (holding that the judiciary could adopt a construction of a statute that would uphold its constitutionality). We emphasize, however, that the showing of harm is not to be weighed along with the other factors in § 30-3-4.1(d)(6). Rather, . . . a court considering a petition for grandparent visitation must first presume the correctness of the decision of a fit, natural, custodial parent as to grandparent visitation and then determine whether the petitioning grandparent has presented clear and convincing evidence that the denial of the requested visitation will harm the child. If so, the court may then weigh the other statutory factors to determine the mode and extent of grandparent visitation necessary to alleviate the harm to the child without further infringing on the fundamental rights of the parents."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. E.H.G. v. E.R.G. · 73 So. 3d 634 - Ex Parte Erg