Hearn v. Hearn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In this instance , the trial court had to first make a determination of what amount of the support award was alimony and what amount was child support. Such a determination was essential in order for the court to terminate the alimony. That is, until there was a determination by the trial court of an allocation of a portion of the award to alimony and a portion to child support, there could logically be no termination of alimony. Once the trial court determined the amount of alimony, it had the duty, under § 30-2-55 , to terminate such alimony upon petition of the husband and proof of remarriage. This the trial court did. The statute contemplates the termination of alimony. Under circumstances where the support being paid to the wife does not differentiate between alimony and child support, the statute cannot become operative until alimony is fixed as a sum certain. In this instance , the husband urges us to hold that termination of the alimony relates back to the date of remarriage. However, it was only until the trial court determined what portion of the award being paid was alimony that there was any point in time from which the alimony could terminate. . . . In this instance , to relate back the termination of alimony to the date of remarriage would be contrary to the expressed intent of § 30-2-55 and its purpose in that until alimony is fixed as a sum certain there is no amount that can be terminated. Therefore, the trial court was correct in terminating future alimony t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 405 So. 2d 938 - Tillis v. Tillis