780 So. 2d 1241 - Kyle v. Kyle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We are cognizant of courts' reluctance to separate siblings in most cases, but also remain mindful that custody determinations are made on a case-by-case basis with each being decided based on the best interest of the child or children at issue in the particular case. See Davis v. Davis, 494 So.2d 1315 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986). The supreme court has acknowledged that it is sometimes necessary to separate siblings, Tiffee v. Tiffee, 254 La. 381 , 223 So.2d 840 (1969); and, where it is in the best interest of the child or children to be separated, courts have approved of such arrangements. See Meredith v. Meredith, 521 So.2d 793 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988) (separation of siblings three years apart in age approved); Daugherty v. Cromwell, 501 So.2d 955 (La.App. 2d Cir.1987) (separation of half-siblings approved); Price v. Price, 451 So.2d 1187 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984) (separation of siblings, one of whom was adopted, approved); Wallace v. Wallace, 420 So.2d 1326 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982) (siblings of the same union separated).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 814 So. 2d 773 - Hoskins v. Hoskins