Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 Ark. App. 481 - Sheppard v. Speir

85 Ark. App. 481 - Sheppard v. Speir’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2021

24 state decisions

120200420102020decided

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 Huffman v. Fisher · Norwood v. Robinson · 83 Ark. App. 7 - Middleton v. Middleton · 82 Ark. App. 562 - Durham v. Durham · 84 Ark. App. 36 - Dunham v. Doyle

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. “(1) the child’s preference; (2) the effect of the change of the child’s name on the preservation and development of the child’s relationship with each parent; (3) the length of time the child has borne a given name; (4) the degree of community respect associated with the present and proposed names; (5) the difficulties, harassment, or embarrassment that the child may experience from bearing the present or proposed name; and (6) the existence of any parental misconduct or neglect.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In reviewing child-custody cases, we consider the evidence de novo, but will not reverse the trial court’s findings unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. A finding is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. We also give special deference to the superior position of the trial court to evaluate and judge the credibility of the witnesses in child-custody cases. We know of no cases in which the superior position, ability, and opportunity of the trial court to observe the parties carry as great a weight as those involving children. In custody cases, the primary consideration is the welfare and best interest of the child involved, while other considerations are merely secondary.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “only set temporary visitation and went on to state that the issue of custody would be determined on October 31, 2002,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.