Lawrence v. Lawrence’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 929 So. 2d 447 - Ex Parte Snider · 568 So. 2d 1239 - Harville v. Harville · Tice v. Tice · 861 So. 2d 1104 - Allen v. Fountain · Holland v. Jenkins
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a trial court cannot consider new evidence as a basis for amending a judgment.” Lawrence v. Lawrence, 117 So.3d 723, 726 (Ala.Civ.App.2013). See also Marsh v. Smith, 67 So.3d 100, 107-08 (Ala.Civ.App.2011); and Tice v. Tice, 100 So.3d 1071, 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.2012). . See Marsh v. Marsh, 852 So.2d 161, 164 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bradley v. Murphy
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.