Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 42 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 Rosenberg v. Rosenberg.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rosenberg v. Rosenberg Anchor | green | “a custody award should not be used to reward or punish a parent for good or bad behavior” | 7 |
| 2 | Everett v. Parker | green | “formal notice and an opportunity to be heard are fundamental components of due process when a person may be deprived in a legal proceeding of a liberty interest, such as physical freedom, or a parent's custody of her child.” | 7 |
| 3 | Choplosky v. Choplosky | green | “without a motion to modify visitation rights before it, a trial court may not permanently alter the visitation rights of the parties,” | 6 |
| 4 | Hopkins v. Byes | green | “to be in contempt, a party must have violated a court order, and the complaining party must satisfy that burden by a preponderance of the evidence.” | 6 |
| 5 | Clapper v. Harvey | green | “a mother's violation of a custody order may be an appropriate foundation for a finding of contempt, but it cannot be the basis for an award of custody” | 6 |
| 6 | Everett v. Parker | green | “when modification of custody is sought by a custody contempt petitioner, the respondent must be given particular notice of that objective.” | 6 |
| 7 | P.H.D. v. R.R.D. | green | “the complainant must prove certain distinct elements: (1) that the eontemnor had notice of the specific order or decree which he is alleged to have disobeyed; (2) that the act constituting the contemnor's violation was volitional; and (3) that the eontemnor acted with wrongful i…” | 4 |
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.