Clements v. Clements’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In proceedings under this article . . ., there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a change of principal residence of a child is not in the best interest of the child. The party seeking a change of principal residence of a child shall have the initial burden of proof on the issue. If that burden of proof is met, the burden of proof shifts to the non-relocating party."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Terry v. Terry · 961 So. 2d 896 - Sankey v. Sankey

2. “(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely impact the change of principal residence of a child will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knight v. Knight · 961 So. 2d 896 - Sankey v. Sankey

3. ““[W]here a trial court receives ore tenus evidence, its judgment based on that evidence is entitled to a presumption of correctness. See Scholl v. Parsons, [ 655 So.2d 1060 (Ala.Civ.App.1995)]. ‘The presumption of correctness is based in part on the trial court’s unique ability to observe the parties and the witnesses and to evaluate their credibility and demeanor.’ Littleton v. Littleton, 741 So.2d 1083, 1085 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal and to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Somers v. McCoy, 777 So.2d 141 (Ala.Civ.App.2000); see also Ex parte Perkins, 646 So.2d 46 (Ala.1994).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bates v. Bates · Knight v. Knight