Meehan v. Meehan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[G]enerally, ... '[t]he source of periodic-alimony payments must be the current income of the payor spouse.' Rose v. Rose , 70 So.3d 429 , 433 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (citing Smith v. Smith , 866 So.2d 588 , 591 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) ). The current income, however, is not the sole factor for the trial court to consider in determining an award of periodic alimony. " '[W]hen determining the amount of periodic alimony to be awarded, the trial court shall consider the earning capacity of the parties. See , e.g. , Ebert v. Ebert , 469 So.2d 615 , 618 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985) ("[The] ability to earn, as opposed to actual earnings, is a proper factor to consider in deciding ... an initial award of ... periodic alimony ...."). As with the matter of voluntary underemployment for child-support purposes, the factual question of the earning capacity of a spouse is to be decided by the trial court as an exercise of its judicial discretion. See Lackey v. Lackey , 18 So.3d 393 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). Hence, we may reverse a judgment based on a finding regarding the earning ability of a spouse for alimony purposes only if the trial court has exceeded its discretion in making that finding. See Warner v. Warner , 693 So.2d 487 , 488-89 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).' " Stone v. Stone , 26 So.3d 1228 , 1231 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009)."”

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