Thomas v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 1974 · most notably Eaton v. Shene (1968), Ruck v. Ruck (1956)
34 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 29 Ala. App. 349 - Wilkins v. State · 29 Ala. App. 399 - Robertson v. State · Linn v. Linn · Cox v. Brown · Campbell v. Rice
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The appellant, in effect, invites us to review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decree, or, in the alternative, to declare a reversal of the cause because the evidence was not transcribed and filed pursuant to Equity Rule 56, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix. On the state of the record as presented, however, there is nothing before us for consideration. “ ‘The holding has been settled, and without exception, that the absence from the record of evidence taken orally before the court, though'noted, precludes a review on appeal of the propriety of the trial court’s conclusions thereon. Gipson v. Hicks, 243 Ala. 617 , 11 So.2d 461 ; Linn v. Linn, 242 Ala. 688 , 8 So.2d 187 ; Allen v. Allen, 223 Ala. 223 , 135 So. 169 . “ ‘It will be presumed that the omitted evidence justified the adjudication of the court (chancellor) on the various issues of fact presented. Wood v. Wood, 119 Ala. 183 , 24 So. 841 ; Gipson v. Hicks, supra; Alabama Digest, Appeal and Error, ^907(4). “ ‘Equity Rule 56 does provide that when the testimony is taken orally “the court trying the case must require the court reporter, or some other competent stenographer acting for him, to take down the testimony as delivered,’ etc. and this proviso has been declared to be mandatory. Weatherwax v. Heflin, 244 Ala. 210 , 12 So.2d 554 ; Campbell v. Rice, 244 Ala. 144 , 12 So. 2d 385 . “ ‘Nevertheless, this mandate of the rule does not preclude a waiver by the parties of the taking of the testimony by the report”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Zills v. Zills · Tate v. Smith
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.