5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Smith v. Karanja.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Smith v. Karanja Anchor | green | “the change-in-circumstances requirement is a threshold issue for the trial court and is based on a policy of preventing constant re-litigation with respect to children.” | 6 |
| 2 | Stamper v. Knox | green | “the mere fact that a trial court decided an issue in a manner differently than an appellate court would under similar circumstances does not establish an abuse of discretion.” | 3 |
| 3 | Epps v. Deboise | green | “determination of a substantial and material change is not controlled by a set of guidelines; instead, it is fact specific.” | 3 |
| 4 | In re Interest of J.J.G. | green | “faced the parties and their witnesses, observed their demeanor, and had the opportunity to evaluate the claims made by each parent.” | 3 |
| 5 | In re Interest of J.J.G. | green | “it faced the parties and their witnesses, observed their demeanor, and had the opportunity to evaluate the claims made by each parent.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.