Michel v. Michel’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably Woolridge v. Woolridge (1996), Stowe v. Spence (2001)
41 state decisions
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 In Re Marriage of Dusing · In Re Marriage of Gourley · Knoblauch v. Jones · Campbell v. Campbell · Harding v. Harding
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [T]he prospective advantages of the move in improving the general quality of life for the custodial parent and child, (2) the integrity of the custodial parent’s motives in relocating (whether primarily to defeat or frustrate visitation and whether the custodial parent is likely to comply with substitute visitation orders), (3) the integrity of the noncustodial parent’s motives for opposing relocation and the extent to which it is intended to secure a financial advantage with respect to continuing child support, and (4) the realistic opportunity for visitation which can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the noncustodial parent’s relationship with the child if relocation is permitted.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]here the custodial parent, who has exercised the right of custody and control in a manner conducive to the welfare and development of the [child], demonstrates a need to move from the state in order to achieve employment and financial betterment which will subserve the best interest of the [child], judicial permission to remove the [child] is warranted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In our highly mobile society, it is unrealistic to inflexibly confine a custodial parent to a fixed geographical area, if removal to another area for reasons such as change of employment, remarriage, etc., is consistent with the best interest of the minor children. This court has recognized and applied four factors as “particularly relevant in determining the propriety of a relocation by a custody parent.” ... (1) The prospective advantage of the move in improving the general quality of life for the custodial parent and child. * * * * ⅜ * (2) The integrity of the custodial parent’s motives in relocating. * * * * * * (3) The integrity of the non-custodial parent’s motives for opposing relocation and the extent to which it is intended to secure a financial advantage with respect to continuing child support. * * * * * * (4) Whether there is a realistic opportunity for visitation which can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the non-custodial parent’s relationship with the child if relocation is permitted. (Citations Omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Butler v. Butler
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.