334 So. 2d 915 - Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 1993
20 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 55 Ala. App. 379 - Gould v. Gould · 45 Ala. App. 367 - Rowe v. Rowe · 45 Ala. App. 646 - Northcutt v. Northcutt · 47 Ala. App. 396 - Stephens v. Stephens · 56 Ala. App. 676 - Mullinax v. Mullinax
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A change in custody must be justified by a material change of circumstances since the rendition of the original decree, or by proof of material facts which, though existing at the time of the original decree, were then undisclosed, and have since been revealed. Rowe v. Rowe, 45 Ala.App. 367 , 231 So.2d 144 ; Stephens v. Stephens, 47 Ala.App. 396 , 255 So.2d 338 . However, it is well recognized that the trial judge who hears the evidence ore tenus is in the best position to ascertain if there has been a change of circumstances or revelation of undisclosed facts such as will necessitate custodial change.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“will not be reversed on appeal save for plain and palpable error and abuse of discretion.”
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.