Ewing v. Gordon’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. “The long standing rule in Idaho is that the welfare of the child is of primary consideration in determining custody rights in children. In the implementation of this rule, this Court has consistently applied the presumption that a natural parent should have custody of his child as opposed to other lineal or collateral relatives or interested parties. The facts at bar, .through Ewing’s showing of natural parentage, establish in the appellant a prima facie case for custody. The burden therefore shifts to the respondent to prove that Terrence Ewing has forfeited his rights. Such proof requires a showing of clear, satisfactory, or convincing evidence that the parent is patently unfit or has abandoned his child, or as in the factual situation at bar, where an adverse party has custody of the child for an appreciable period of time (in excess of three years), the best interests of the child dictate custody being placed with the adverse party if the facts show he is better fitted to raise the child than the natural parent. Where an adverse party has had custody of a child for an appreciable period of time, in this case over four years,' the custody of the child will be left with that party if the best interests of the child so dictate. Such a finding is proper if the adverse party is shown to be better fitted to raise the child than the natural parent. As such, we reject the appellant’s argument that only a mandatory showing of abandonment or patent unfitness will suffice to overcom”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stockwell v. Stockwell

2. “I am . compelled to dissent not only by reason of the result obtained in the instant case but also by reason of certain language contained in the majority opinion, which in my opinion injects new criteria into an area of law which prior to this case has at best been confusing, complex, contradictory from decision to decision and which furnishes no guide to the courts, lawyers or the people of this state. Cases which present demands for custody of children are at best difficult when presented in the context of a divorce action with each of the parties demanding custody possessing natural parent status. When such custodial demands are between one party as a natural parent and the other a non-parent I suggest that the decisions are demonstrably result oriented. One would believe that the statutes would give considerable guidance if not absolute direction in this field. I.C. § 32-1007 provides: The father and mother of a legitimate unmarried minor child are equally entitled to its custody, services and earnings. If either the father or mother be dead or be unable or refuse to take the custody or has abandoned his or her family, the other is entitled to the child’s custody, services and earnings. I.C. § 15-1805 prior to the adoption of the Uniform Probate Code provided: Either the father or mother of a minor, being themselves respectively competent to transact their own business, and not otherwise unsuitable must be entitled to the guardianship of the minor. Provisions of the Unif”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stockwell v. Stockwell

3. “I come now to what in my judgment is the most peculiar of all of the opinions of the court heretofore reviewed, that of Yearsley v. Yearsley, 94 Idaho 667 , 496 P.2d 666 , issued in 1972, shortly after Duncan v. Davis [ 94 Idaho 205 , 485 P.2d 603 (1971) ]. Therein the mother and father were divorced in 1964 when the child was one year old. Although the mother was initially granted custody of the child, shortly thereafter the father obtained custody which was confirmed by the. court. The father was employed in a job that took him away from home and at that time he also had severe economic problems. He therefore placed the child with friends (Butlers) and that arrangement was confirmed by the court in 1966. The court also held at that time that neither of the natural parents were fit to have custody. The child remained with the Butlers until 1970 at which point the father brought proceedings seeking the custody of his child and alleging changed conditions since the court action of 1966. A hearing was held at which no party appeared except the father. Nevertheless, the trial court requested a recommendation from the Department of Public Assistance, which agency recommended that the child be left with the Butlers, albeit the report was also favorable to the father. The trial court in essence adopted the recommendation of the agency and denied the petition of the father. When the matter was heard before this court it was in the nature of a default matter with only the father appe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stockwell v. Stockwell