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 7 cases, quoted by 55 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 In Re Marriage of Burgess.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Marriage of Burgess Anchor | green | “the precise measure is whether the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the order in question advanced the 'best interest' of the child.” | 27 |
| 2 | In Re Marriage of LaMusga | green | “the children's interest in stability and continuity in the custodial arrangement; the distance of the move; the age of the children; the children's relationship with both parents; the relationship between the parents including, but not limited to, their ability to communicate an…” | 8 |
| 3 | Roberts v. Roberts | green | “a clear showing of an abuse in the exercise of such discretion.” | 4 |
| 4 | Condon v. Cooper | green | “whether or not the move-away parent has the funds to post a substantial bond,” | 4 |
| 5 | Abargil v. Abargil | green | “the judgment had teeth to compel her adherence because it required her to post a bond or other surety to ensure her compliance,” | 4 |
| 6 | Heath v. Heath | green | “speculation by lawyers, conflicting argument on behalf of parents, and 'hunches' of judges.” | 4 |
| 7 | F.T. v. L.J. | green | “misunderstanding and/or avoiding the fundamental question before it.” | 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.