Shaffer v. Shaffer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “[l]ife changes may occur, but if the changes do not have an effect on the welfare of the child, then no change in custody is justified.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 251 So. 3d 546 - Harrel v. Harrel · 951 So. 2d 500 - LeBlanc v. LeBlanc

2. “(1) The love, affection, and other emotional ties between each party and the child; (2) The capacity and disposition of each party to give the child love, affection, and spiritual guidance and to continue the education and rearing of the child; (3) The capacity and disposition of each party to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, and other material needs; (4) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, adequate environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity of that environment; (5) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes; (6) The moral fitness of each party, insofar as it affects the welfare of the child; (7) The mental and physical health of each party; (8) The home, school, and community history of the child; (9) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express a preference; (10) The willingness and ability of each party to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other party; (11) The distance between the respective residences of the parties; and (12) The responsibility for the care and rearing of the child previously exercised by each party.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 890 So. 2d 1 - Pender v. Pender

3. “[I]t is desirable that there be an end of litigation and undesirable to change the child's established mode of living except for imperative reasons. Moreover, to require a party to show a change in circumstances materially affecting the child's welfare before contesting an award of custody, that he previously has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, protects his adversary and the child from the vexation and expense attending multiple unjustified lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and fosters reliance on judicial actions by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 927 So. 2d 433 - Cedotal v. Cedotal