263 So. 3d 715 - Weith v. Weith’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. “" Section 30-2-5[, Ala. Code 1975,] provides that, '[w]hen the defendant [in a divorce action] is a nonresident, the other party to the marriage must have been a bona fide resident of this state for six months next before the filing of the complaint, which must be alleged in the complaint and proved.' 'If the residency requirements set forth in § 30-2-5 are not met, the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the divorce action.' Alsaikhan v. Alakel , 173 So.3d 925 , 927 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). 'The parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction.' Hilley v. Hilley , 275 Ala. 617 , 619, 157 So.2d 215 , 218 (1963). " 'It is well settled that, for the purposes of § 30-2-5, residence is equivalent to domicile. Ex parte Ferguson , 15 So.3d 520 , 522 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) ; Skieff v. Cole-Skieff , 884 So.2d 880 , 883 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) ; Livermore v. Livermore , 822 So.2d 437 , 442 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) ; and Webster v. Webster , 517 So.2d 5 , 7 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987). " ' " ' "Domicile is defined as residence at a particular place accompanied by an intention to stay there permanently, or for an indefinite length of time." Nora v. Nora , 494 So.2d 16 , 17 (Ala. 1986). A person's domicile continues until a new one is acquired. Id. ' " " ' Ex parte Ferguson , 15 So.3d at 522 (quoting Fuller v. Fuller , 991 So.2d 285 , 290 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) ). Black's Law Dictionary 592 (10th ed. 2014) defines "domicile" as "[t]he place at which a person has been physically present and that the pers”

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

2. “' " 'A change of domicile cannot be inferred from an absence, temporary in character, and attended with the requisite intention to return. To the fact of residence in the new locality there must be the added element of the animus manendi before it can be said that the former domicile has been abandoned. The intention to return is usually of controlling importance in the determination of the whole question.... " ' " '... As a general proposition a person can have but one domicile, and when once acquired is presumed to continue until a new one is gained facto et animo, and what state of facts constitutes a change of domicile is a mixed question of law and fact.... " ' " 'One who asserts a change of domicile has the burden of establishing it.... And "where facts are conflicting, the presumption is strongly in favor of an original, or former domicile, as against an acquired one,”

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

3. “mere statement ... that [the wife] is a resident of the State of Alabama and has been such 'for the length of time required by law' is insufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirement that the [wife] be domiciled in this state, the [husband] not being shown to be domiciled here.”

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