Dunn v. Dunn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A trial court loses jurisdiction to modify a property division in a divorce judgment 30 days after the entry of the judgment. Hocutt v. Hocutt, 491 So.2d 247, 248 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). This court has held, however, that if the provisions of a property settlement are vague or ambiguous, a judgment interpreting or clarifying the property settlement does not constitute a modification of the property settlement. Williams v. Williams, 591 So.2d 879, 880 (Ala.Civ.App.1991); see also Granger v. Granger, 804 So.2d 217, 219 (Ala.Civ.App.2001); Grayson v. Grayson, 628 So.2d 918 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993). Further, a trial court has the inherent power to interpret, clarify, and enforce its orders and judgments. Granger v. Granger, supra ; Patterson v. Patterson, 518 So.2d 739, 742 (Ala.Civ. App.1987)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 28 So. 3d 800 - Barnes v. Barnes · 194 So. 3d 960 - Stender v. Stender

2. ““[0]n October 12, 2007, [the wife] filed a motion to interplead funds and a motion to enforce the trial court’s divorce judgment. The wife paid $28,976.80 into the court; that amount represented the proceeds from the sale of the parties’ marital home. In her October 12, 2007, motion to enforce the divorce judgment, the wife alleged that a dispute had arisen between the parties regarding the manner in which the trial court [ ] ... provided for the disbursement of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home.... [The husband] filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that his interpretation of the divorce judgment supported that motion.... “With regard to the division of the parties’ property, the divorce judgment ordered, among other things, that the husband pay the wife $12,272.34, representing her portion of his interest in a limited-liability company (‘the LLC’), from the proceeds of the sale of the marital home. The trial court’s divorce judgment also ordered that the proceeds from the sale of the marital home be used to repay the parties’ marital debt. In this action, the parties dispute whether the proceeds from the sale of the marital home should first be applied to pay the wife her interest in the LLC or whether the proceeds from the sale of the marital home should first be applied to the repayment of marital debt. The confusion arises from' the different treatment of those issues in the January 3, 2006, order' and the May 18, 2006, [divorce judgment] a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dunn v. Dunn