366 So. 2d 293 - McSween v. McSween’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2013
15 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 Dorothy Evans Anderson Etc. v. Dr. M. L. Moorer · Coosa Marble Co., Inc. v. Whetstone · 55 Ala. App. 68 - Modernage Homes v. Wooldridge · 54 Ala. App. 209 - Tichansky v. Tichansky · Norris v. Seibels
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Furthermore, plaintiff's proper remedy when the decree was rendered was appeal. To this court, the trial court's action, in this instance, in dividing the property of the parties may well have been error. Put another way, the trial court may have abused its discretion in the division of property in the July, 1973, decree of divorce. However, such error did not make the decree void so as to render it vulnerable to collateral attack. The proper method to review a trial court's abuse of discretion in a divorce proceeding is appeal. See Monroe v. Monroe , Ala.Civ.App., 356 So.2d 196 (1978). The law of Alabama does not entitle a party to relitigate issues which were raised or could have been raised in a prior suit. Anderson v. Moorer , 372 F.2d 747 (5th Cir. 1967). "In view of the above, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60 (b)(4). "The remaining provision of Rule 60 (b) is 60 (b)(6). Again, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under this provision. "As our Presiding Judge Wright stated in [Gallups v. United States Steel Corp. , 353 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978)], `Rule 60 (b) is an extreme and powerful remedy and should be used only under extraordinary circumstances. . . . . It is not available to relieve from failure of a party to exercise the right of appeal.' See Tichansky v. Tichansky , 54 Ala. App. 209 , 307 So.2d 20 (1974), cert. denied , 293 Ala. 775 , 307 So.2d 24 (1975). In this instance, clearly appeal was available to the plaintiff. We therefore find ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hobbs v. Hobbs“In view of the above, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60 (b)(4).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hobbs v. Hobbs
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.