Walker v. Lanier’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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Willis v. Willis , 45 So.3d 347 , 349 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (quoting Mosley v. Mosley , 747 So.2d 894 , 898 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) ).' Morgan v. Morgan , 183 So.3d 945 , 961 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Humber v. Humber · 244 So. 3d 975 - Wells v. Tankersley

2. “' "[t]his court has held that if the record does not reflect compliance with Rule 32(E) ... (which requires the filing of 'Child Support Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit' forms (Forms CS-41) and a 'Child Support Guidelines' form (Form CS-42)), and if child support is made an issue on appeal, this court will remand (or reverse and remand) for compliance with the rule. See Martin v. Martin , 637 So.2d 901 , 903 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). On the other hand, this court has affirmed child-support awards when, despite the absence of the required forms, we could discern from the appellate record what figures the trial court used in computing the child-support obligation. See , e.g. , Dunn v. Dunn , 891 So.2d 891 , 896 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) ; Rimpf v. Campbell , 853 So.2d 957 , 959 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) ; and Dismukes v. Dorsey , 686 So.2d 298 , 301 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). Nevertheless, without the child-support-guidelines forms, it is sometimes impossible for an appellate court to determine from the record whether the trial court correctly applied the guidelines in establishing or modifying a child-support obligation. See Horwitz v. Horwitz , 739 So.2d 1118 , 1120 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 244 So. 3d 975 - Wells v. Tankersley

3. “"Whether to make a parent's child-support obligation retroactive to the date the petition to modify was filed is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Volovecky v. Hoffman , 903 So.2d 844 , 850 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). " 'The trial court may exercise its discretion in setting the effective date of a modification, but it is not bound to modify as of the date of the filing of the petition. Clutts v. Clutts , 54 Ala. App. 43 , 304 So.2d 599 (1974) ; see also , Murphy v. Murphy , 491 So.2d 978 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986). This matter is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be disturbed unless it was so unsupported by the evidence as to be palpably wrong, manifestly unjust, or plainly erroneous. Culverhouse v. Culverhouse , 389 So.2d 937 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980).' " Rogers v. Sims , 671 So.2d 714 , 716-17 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995)."”

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