Miller v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Miller relies on In re Cook, 691 S.W.2d 243 (Mo.banc 1985), in support of her argument. The Cook court noted that § 452.-455.2 grants a party at least 30 days to plead before a hearing can be held. The Cook court voided an order to modify because the petitioner did not receive 30 days. Id. at 244-45 . Unlike Miller, however, the petitioner in Cook did not appear at the hearing, presented no evidence, and received no notice of the hearing. “Although a parent’s voluntary appearance in a child custody case does not grant the court jurisdiction of the subject matter, State ex rel. Laws v. Higgins, 734 S.W.2d 274, 279 (Mo.App.1987), it does establish the court’s jurisdiction over the parent. See In re B.R.F., 669 S.W.2d 240, 248 (Mo.App.1984). Miller received notice that the motion for contempt and motion for transfer of custody would be heard on April 19,1991. She appeared in person on April 22, 1991, advised the court she wanted to proceed, and participated in the hearing.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Adoption of J_____ P_____ S