Nelson v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 34 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he [trial] court did not err in finding again that [Nelson] had abused his daughter. A more difficult question is whether, in light of its finding of abuse,- the trial court abused its discretion in conditioning further visitation by [Nelson] upon his admission that he abused T_ Though the trial court’s order is severe, its severity is justified by the overriding need to protect T. from further harm.... [Nelson] violated the court’s orders by initiating or encouraging physical contact between him and T_ Expert testimony and [Nelson]’s behavior both suggest that even supervised visitation could be harmful to T. The trial court did not clearly err in concluding that “the risk of continuing, long lasting emotional harm to T. from contact with Nelson while he remains in denial is too great to be tolerated.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nelson v. Jones

2. “Accordingly, it is the court’s view that the new evidence would not probably change the trial results and that there will be no injustice if the trial is not reopened. The bottom line is that even with the after-acquired evidence of the experts, the evidence that Nelson molested his daughter, [T], remains compelling and clear and convincing. The after-acquired evidence might suffice to establish a reasonable doubt sufficient to justify an acquittal from criminal charges, but it does not begin to suffice to overcome the evidence against Nelson.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nelson v. Jones

3. “The court also found that “Paul’s new evidence would not probably change the trial results.” Although Paul’s stipulation was not binding on the trial court, it nonetheless constituted evidence on the issue of abuse. See McClain v. McClain, 716 P.2d 381, 385-87 (Alaska 1986); Cope v. Cope [ 49 Or.App. 301 ], 619 P.2d 883, 887 (Or.App.1980), aff'd [ 291 Or. 412 ] 631 P.2d 781 (Or.1981). Taken in combination with the evidence at trial, its force would be difficult to counter. The affidavits offered by Paul are not equal to the test.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nelson v. Jones