Mathieson v. Mathieson’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 2013
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 344 So. 2d 778 - Jernigan v. Jernigan · 366 So. 2d 281 - Goodman v. Goodman · Stewart v. Stewart · 391 So. 2d 124 - Armstrong v. Armstrong · 382 So. 2d 569 - Cooper v. Cooper
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Although it is the better practice to set out the grounds in its decree, a trial court will not be reversed for its failure to do so. Cozad v. Cozad, 372 So.2d 1322 (Ala.Civ. App.1979). Where the decree fails to contain grounds for the divorce, this court will examine the record to see if there is sufficient evidence to support the ground or grounds propounded by the parties and if so the decree will be affirmed. Cozad, supra." Mathieson v. Mathieson, 409 So.2d 439, 442 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). In the present case, the wife sought a divorce on the ground of incompatibility and the husband’s answer to the wife’s complaint acknowledged that the parties were incompatible. The evidence supported incompatibility as a ground for the divorce.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. J.D.A. v. A.B.A. · E.A.B. v. D.G.W.
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.