Jones v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Ex parte Christopher, this Court oyerruled Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986 (Ala.1989), and held that the child-custody statute, § 30-3-1, Ala.Code 1975, did not authorize a trial court in a divorce action to require.a noncustodial parent to pay educational support for. a child who was over the age of 19, 145 So.3d at 72 . This Court further held that the decision in Ex parte Christopher would not affect final orders of postminority education support but would apply to cases where an appeal of a postminority-educational-support order was pending' at the time Ex parte Christopher was decided- “Because the trial court’s order awarding postminority educational support was pending on appeal in the Court of Civil Appeal’s when Ex parte Christopher was decided, the Court of Civil Appeals erred in not applying Ex parte Christopher in this case. The father filed an appeal from the trial court’s postminority-educational-support order on September 10, 2013. This Court decided Ex parte Christopher on October 4, 2013. Because this case was pending on appeal in the Court of Civil Appeals when Ex parte Christopher was decided, the Court of Civil Appeals erred by not applying the holding in Ex parte Christopher that a trial court does not have authority to order postminority. educational support in’ this case and by not reversing the trial court’s order. Because the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming the trial court’s order conflicts with Ex parte Christopher, that court’s ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Duerr v. Duerr

2. ““ ‘ “On certiorari review, this Court accords no presumption of correctness to the legal conclusions of the intermediate appellate court....” Ex parte Toyota Motor Corp., 684 So.2d 132, 135 (Ala.1996).’ “Ex parte Helms, 873 So.2d 1139, 1143 (Ala.2003). ‘ “[0]n appeal, the ruling on a question of law carries no presumption of correctness, and this Court’s review is de novo.” ’ Rogers Found. Repair, Inc. v. Powell, 748 So.2d 869, 871 (Ala.1999) (quoting Ex parte Graham, 702 So.2d 1215, 1221 (Ala.1997)).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Duerr v. Duerr