Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 So. 3d 489 - Holifield v. Lambert

112 So. 3d 489 - Holifield v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis

2012

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 34 So. 3d 1276 - HJT v. State Ex Rel. MSM · 343 So. 2d 529 - Wilger v. Department of Pensions and Security · M.C. v. L.J.H. · 925 So. 2d 970 - Rm v. Jdc · 980 So. 2d 404 - Food World v. Carey

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. ““This appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court arises out of efforts on the part of Jimmie L. Holifield (‘the father’) to set aside a judgment of the Jefferson Family Court entered in favor of Shirley J. Lambert (‘the mother’) on her child-support-arrearage claim against the father stemming from a 1971 judgment of paternity entered by a Wisconsin court specifying the father’s support obligations as to a child born of the parties in December 1968. According to Wisconsin authorities, the father’s combined indebtedness, including interest, to the mother and the State of Wisconsin as a function of his having failed to fully comply with the support provisions of that paternity judgment had swelled to over $105,000 as of November 2007. “The matter was referred to the Jefferson County Department of Human Resources (‘DHR’), which, on relation of the mother, filed a complaint in the Jefferson Family Court seeking a money judgment against the father as to that arrearage. That case was docketed in that court as case number CS-08-806. We note that actions concerning child support generally, and in particular cases filed in the Jefferson Family Court and docketed with a case number having a ‘CS’ prefix, are governed by the Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure. See generally H.J.T. v. State ex reí. M.S.M., 34 So.3d 1276, 1278 (Ala.Civ.App.2009), and M.C. v. L.J.H., 868 So.2d 465, 467 (Ala.Civ.App.2003). “Although the father filed a motion to dismiss the mother’s family-court ac”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.