McEachin v. McEachin’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Frumkes v. Frumkes (1976), 235 So. 2d 53 - Sistrunk v. Sistrunk (1970)
33 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 98 So. 2d 334 - Cortina v. Cortina · Finston v. Finston · Mabson v. Christ · Town of Boca Raton v. Moore · Knabb v. Duner
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“****** “A more troublesome contention made by the appellee is that the chancellor has the power to modify the final decree because of the provision in that decree that the court ‘reserves jurisdiction herein for the entry of such other and further orders as may be proper herein, and for the purpose of modifying any orders herein.’ “While the authorities in Florida and elsewhere as to the legal effect of such a reservation clause are not wholly consistent, we are of the opinion that the better rule, as well as the weight of authority, is that such a reservation clause does not endow the court with jurisdiction that otherwise would be lost. (Emphasis supplied) “Our decision in Morrison v. Morrison, Fla.App., 122 So.2d 199 (1960), supports this view concerning the reservation clause. As we said in that case: “ ‘ * * * It is settled principle of law in this state that a court of equity possesses no power to go back and grant a new right or impose a new duty not adjudicated in its former decree after it has become final and absolute. Although the court retains the power to modify by subsequent order the time or manner of the enforcement of a final decree after it has become final, under our rules it does- not retain the power, unless specifically provided by statute, to amend, modify or alter the principles of such final decree. If the court intended but failed to include in its. decree a provision re lieving the father from the payment of support money while the children were in ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The rule seems well settled that a final decree in an equity suit settles all property rights of the parties and bars any action thereafter brought by either party to determine the question of property rights. [Citations omitted.]"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“While a court of equity retains the power to modify by subsequent order the time or manner of the enforcement of a final decree after the expiration of the term in which it was rendered, or after it has become final and absolute under our rules, it does not retain the power to amend, modify, or alter the principles of such final decree.”
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.