395 So. 2d 1047 - Murphy v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The appellant next claims that the trial court erred in setting the amount of support payable in the future at $30 per week. Appellant views this as a modification of the Georgia decree’s $50 per week support provision and challenges the authority of the circuit court to so modify. Alabama courts may modify support provisions in a sister state’s divorce decree with respect to future installments when the parties are properly before it. Wood v. Wood, 275 Ala. 305 , 154 So.2d 661 (1963); Green v. Green, 239 Ala. 407 , 195 So. 549 (1940). Although this matter was initiated by the appellant as a contempt proceeding, and we find no petition for modification, the record tends to indicate that it evolved into inclusion of present ability of appel-lee to pay future child support. “We view the order setting future support at $30 per week not as a modification of the Georgia decree, but as an original order of support. The parties were before the court. It had jurisdiction to enter an order for support.””

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

2. “is limited to questions of law and, if there is any evidence to support its finding, the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 427 So. 2d 998 - Graham v. State