Block v. Block’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 57 Ala. App. 185 - O'Dell v. O'Dell (1976), 470 So. 2d 1297 - Murphy v. Murphy (1985)
36 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 Epps v. Epps · Garlington v. Garlington · Davis v. Davis · Worthington v. Worthington · Callen v. Callen
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[The husband] lays much stress on the following provision in the agreement: " 'NINTH: In the event that at any time hereafter a judgment or decree of divorce or separation shall be entered in favor of either party in any court of competent jurisdiction, the provisions of this agreement for the support and maintenance of the Wife and for the support and maintenance of the child of said marriage, shall be embodied in any such judgment or decree or may be adopted by reference and shall survive any such decree or judgment but no such judgment or decree so obtained by either party shall in any way affect this agreement or any of its terms, covenants and conditions, or its validity, it being intended that this agreement or any of its terms, covenants and conditions, shall be absolute, unconditional and irrevocable, and that both parties shall forever be legally bound thereby.' "With this we cannot agree. It is well settled that an agreement of the parties fixing the amount of alimony becomes merged into the decree, and thereby loses the contractual nature at least to the extent that the court has the power to modify the decree when changed conditions so justify. Garlington v. Garlington , 246 Ala. 665 , 22 So.2d 89 ; Worthington v. Worthington , 224 Ala. 237 , 139 So. 334 ; Adams v. Adams , 229 Ala. 588 , 159 So. 80 . The equity court which granted the original divorce had the authority to consider a modification of the amount of alimony irrespective of the terms of the agreement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ . . . . [T]he court may and should inquire into the earning ability of the parties and their probable future prospects, their age, sex, health and station in life; the duration of the marriage, the conduct of the parties with particular reference to the cause of the divorce.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where a decree of divorce has adopted an agreement with respect to alimony and maintenance, the court will not modify such agreed decree except on proof of changed conditions which justify the modification. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Corsino v. Corsino
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.