Walker v. Lanier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “McCormick v. Ethridge , 15 So.3d 524 , 527 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). It is not sufficient for a noncustodial parent seeking a modification of custody to show that he or she is a fit custodian. Id . The noncustodial parent must prove all three McLendon factors in order to warrant a modification of custody. Id .”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. B.L.F. v. M.D.M. · Cochran v. Cochran

2. ““Because this court is unable to determine whether the trial court applied the McLendon standard or whether it made a finding of domestic violence,[ 1 ] we reverse the judgment in the custody-modification case and remand that case for the trial court to apply the McLendon standard to the evidence it received and, after doing so, to clarify its judgment in the custody-modification case. “Because child-support obligations are dependent upon custody arrangements, see generally Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin., we also reverse the judgment in the child-support case. Thus, we pre-termit discussion of the father’s remaining issues on appeal. Our reversal of the judgment in the child-support case should not be interpreted as a determination as to the propriety or impropriety of an award of child support. On remand, in light of our reversal of the judgment in the custody-modification case, the trial court will have the opportunity to review the evidence relevant to child support and to reconsider that issue.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lanier v. Walker

3. “' "Our standard of review is very limited in cases where the evidence is presented ore tenus . A custody determination of the trial court entered upon oral testimony is accorded a presumption of correctness on appeal, Payne v. Payne , 550 So.2d 440 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989), and Vail v. Vail , 532 So.2d 639 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988), and we will not reverse unless the evidence so fails to support the determination that it is plainly and palpably wrong, or unless an abuse of the trial court's discretion is shown. To substitute our judgment for that of the trial court would be to reweigh the evidence. This Alabama law does not allow. Gamble v. Gamble , 562 So.2d 1343 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990) ; Flowers v. Flowers , 479 So.2d 1257 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).”

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