816 So. 2d 540 - Shaw v. Shaw’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
January 2005
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 696 So. 2d 697 - Rosen v. Rosen · 39 So. 2d 554 - Yandell v. Yandell · 770 So. 2d 1164 - Belair v. Drew · 581 So. 2d 1290 - Schutz v. Schutz · Johnston v. Boram
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Williams , the post-dissolution complaint addressed only the limited issue of child support arrearages. Because the scope of the hearing was so limited, due process required that the trial court address only those matters and issues for which the parties had proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. Here, in contrast, the trial court entered its order in the context of a full and final dissolution hearing designed to resolve the broad matters of custody, parental responsibility, primary residence, and visitation. In this case the father had notice that the parties would be litigating the issue of parental responsibility ... and that matters related to the best interests of the child would be fully explored. Under these circumstances, the trial court had authority to impose a parenting course requirement on one or both parents as part of its broad, inherent authority to act in the best interests of the child involved.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Moncher v. Maine
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.