Ames v. Ames’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * * * * "In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "`We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous.' (Emphasis supplied) "In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made: "`This case was heard before the trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the rule is too well established to require the citation of authorities that where the evidence is heard by the Chancellor and the witnesses are before him, the Chancellor's findings should not be disturbed by the appellate court unless shown to be clearly erroneous.' "In Di Marco v. King, Fla.App. 1962, 139 So.2d 750 , this is said: "`It is a well-settled rule that where the evidence is heard by the chancellor and the witnesses are before him, the chancellor's findings based upon conflicting evidence should not be disturbed by the appellate court if the record contains substantial testimony to sustain the decree.' "In Turner v. Noto, Fla.App. 1963, 151 So.2d 303 , it is again emphasized: "`It is a well settled rule that where the evidence is heard by the chancellor, and the witnesses are before him, his findings based upon conflicting evidence should not be disturbed by an appellate court ”

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

2. ““[4-6] This is another case in which no useful purpose would be served by summarizing the evidence here. There were many conflicts and disputes. The onus is upon the trial judge to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and to reconcile the disputes and conflicts in their testimony. Of course, the decision which the chancellor ultimately makes upon the entire case is not absolute and final. It is subject to examination and review by an appellate court which must act within limits established for judicial review of findings of fact. The decision which we might have reached had we been the trier of the facts is now irrelevant. We simply search the record for substantial evidence which supports the decree. It has been said that evidence is substantial if ‘a reasonable mind might accept (it) as adequate to support a conclusion’. Miles v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 523 , 36 So.2d 182 . * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hartig v. Leone

3. “`This case was heard before the trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the rule is too well established to require the citation of authorities that where the evidence is heard by the Chancellor and the witnesses are before him, the Chancellor's findings should not be disturbed by the appellate court unless shown to be clearly erroneous.'”

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