97 Ark. App. 217 - Hodge v. Hodge’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited
18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on In re Murray · Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski · Madigan v. Madigan · Taylor v. Taylor · 81 Ark. App. 292 - Carver v. May
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An inquiry into the law of other jurisdictions supports our conclusion that temporary custody orders are immediately appeal-able. Although a number ofjurisdictions have held that such orders are not immediately appealable, emphasizing the broad rale that interlocutory orders must await the end of an action to be appealed; see, e.g., Chancellor v. Chancellor, 282 Ark. 227, 230 , 667 S.W.2d 950 (1984); In re Temporary Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 443 , 111 P.2d 901 (1989); Craft v. Craft, 579 S.W.2d 506, 508 (Tex. Civ. App.1979); others recognize that temporary orders may be appealed pursuant to local rules recognizing interlocutory appeals. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Walker County Dept, of Family & Children Services, 235 Ga. 817, 818 , 221 S.E.2d 589 (1976); In re Marriage of Kitchen, 126 Ill. App.3d 192, 194-95 , 81 Ill. Dec. 644 , 467 N.E.2d 344 (1984). Likewise, a limited number of jurisdictions recognize temporary custody orders as final for the purpose of immediate appeal. See, e.g., In re Interest of L.W., 241 Neb. 84 , 486 N.W.2d 486, 495 (1992); In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 159-61 , 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990). On balance, we find that the rationale for allowing immediate appeals adopted in the latter jurisdictions, in conjunction with the practice in other jurisdictions that allow these appeals by special interlocutory appeals rules, to be more persuasive than the traditional reasons of judicial economy generally offered as a justification to adhere to a rule of no”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.