Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 786 P2D 65 - G.S. v. Ewing

G.S. v. Ewing’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
7
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2020

24 state decisions

1801990200020102020decided

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 Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Pelaes v. United States · Brooklier v. United States · Lawson v. Suwanee Fruit & Steamship Co · 32 Cal. 3d 689 - Kumar v. Superior Court

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

  1. “"An Oklahoma court, which renders a divorce decree, retains continuing jurisdiction to modify custody . .. if significant parental contact is maintained and if one parent resides in Oklahoma."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A. Except as otherwise provided in [43 O.$.Supp.1998 § 551-204], a court of this state which has made a custody determination consistent with [43 O.S.Supp.1998 § 551-201] or [43 O.S.Supp.1998 § 551-203] has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until: 1. A court of this state determines that neither the child, the child and one parent, nor the child a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. ““A. If a court of another state has made a custody decree, a court of this state shall not modify that decree unless: 1. It appears to the court of this state that the court which rendered the decree does not now have jurisdiction under jurisdictional prerequisites substantially in accordance with this act or has declined to assume jurisdiction to modify the decree, and 2. The court of this state has jurisdiction”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.