Logan v. Logan’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
May 2016
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Parker v. Parker · Hubbard v. Hubbard · 984 So. 2d 1216 - Decker v. Decker · Heaston v. Nabors · 716 So. 2d 224 - Singleton v. Graham
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘ “A final judgment is one that disposes of all the claims and controversies between the parties.” ’ Sanders v. Sanders, 32 So.3d 597, 599 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (quoting Heaston v. Nabors, 889 So.2d 588, 590 (Ala.Civ.App.2004)). ‘[A] trial court’s failure to rule on a contempt motion relating to an interlocutory order would render any subsequent judgment nonfinal because the filing of the contempt motion would not be considered as having initiated a separate proceeding’ Decker v. Decker, 984 So.2d 1216, 1220 (Ala.Civ.App.2007). In the present case, the trial court’s failure to dispose of the wife’s September 3, 2008, motion for contempt renders the trial court’s December 23, 2008, judgment nonfinal. Therefore, the wife’s appeal must be dismissed. See Sanders v. Sanders, 32 So.3d at 599 ; and Brunson v. Brunson, 991 So.2d 728 (Ala.Civ.App.2007).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Perry v. Perry
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.