Ex parte Reynolds’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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. “'[T]he question of subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewable by a petition for a writ of mandamus.' " Ex Parte Reynolds , 209 So.3d 1122 , 1125 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (quoting Ex parte Flint Constr. Co. , 775 So.2d 805 , 808 (Ala. 2000) ). " ' "Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bonner v. Jeter (Ex parte Jeter)

2. ““[T]his court is no longer of the opinion that strict compliance with [§ 30-3D-602(a), Aa.Code 1975,] is required. No language in the statute itself mandates strict compliance with its provisions, and our previous opinions offer no analysis or discussion as to why strict compliance should be required. [[Image here]] “... [T]his court now overrules the line of cases requiring strict compliance with the registration requirements found in § 30-3D-602(a) and holds, instead, that substantial compliance with those requirements is sufficient.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. J.M.S. v. State ex rel. Y.R.S.

3. “[U]nder UIFSA . . . substantial compliance with the requirements of [North Carolina's analog of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-36,602] will suffice to accomplish registration of the foreign order.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 58 Kan. App. 2d 531 - Chalmers v. Burrough