Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 252 Ala. 442 - Colton v. Colton

Colton v. Colton’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
3
states following
April 2000
most recently cited

50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2000 · most notably Hutton v. Hutton (1969), Le Maistre v. Baker (1958)

50 state decisions

2201949195019601970198019902000decided

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 Epps v. Epps · Roubicek v. Roubicek · Garlington v. Garlington · Bowery v. Babbit · Sullivan v. Sullivan

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

  1. “"[A] decree fixing alimony in accordance with the parties' agreement will not be modified except for clearly sufficient reasons, and application therefor should be subjected to a thorough investigation. "Modification of such a decree can only be ordered on proof of change of conditions of the parties, one or both, as the decree is final as to the conditions existing at the time, since existing conditions are presumed to have been considered upon the rendition of the decree."”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The wife was granted the divorce. We must proceed on the assumption that the decree rendered was equitable and fair. Any anticipated increase in income on the part of the husband at that time, which may not have materialized, cannot be considered as a ground for reducing the alimony payments to the former wife.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The fact that the husband has remarried, thereby increasing his expenses, is not such a change in condition of the parties as to justify a reduction of the alimony due the former wife.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.