Rosics v. Heath’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2013
5 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 Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. · Quenzer v. Quenzer · Minnehoma Financial Co. v. Pauli
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A court of this state competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial decree or modification decree if: (i) This state is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding, or was the child’s home state within six (6) months before commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from the state because of his removal or retention by a person claiming his custody or for other reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this state; (ii) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because the child and his parents, or the child and at least one (1) contestant, have a significant connection with the state and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships; (iii) The child is physically present in this state and has been abandoned or if it is necessary in , an emergency to protect the child because he has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected or dependent; or (iv) It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with paragraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) of this subsection, or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child and i”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Weller v. Weller“(ii) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because the child and his parents, or the child and at least one (1) contestant, have a significant connection with the state and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships;”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Weller v. Weller
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.