Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Bogan v. Bogan (2001), Kowalski v. Kowalski (1991)
44 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 66 Wash. 2d 503 - Lambert v. Lambert · 77 Ill. App. 3d 858 - In Re Marriage of Smith · Strater v. Strater · Bubar v. Plant · Crosby v. Crosby
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a general principle, a trial justice has discretion to modify an award of alimony on the ground of substantial change in the payor spouse’s financial condition.... [[Image here]] ... Absent a violation of some positive rule of law, this Court will overturn the trial court’s decision of such a question only if it results in a plain and unmistakable injustice, so apparent that it is instantly visible without argument.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dedek v. Dedek · Finn v. Finn“The better rule appears to be that retirement of the payor spouse for the primary purpose of avoiding alimony does not of itself bring about the substantial change in the payor's circumstances needed to justify a reduction in alimony. Such a rule does not place an undue burden on the payor spouse who retires in complete good faith. On the other hand, as compared with the sole-purpose rule, the primary-purpose rule allows a more searching inquiry into the financial circumstances of the retiring party and makes it more difficult for a parsimonious payor spouse to disguise his motives for retiring. [ 419 A. 2d at 1038 .].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The fact that in the same measure that enacted section 722-A the legislature amended section 721 without any provision limiting the source of funds from which alimony may be derived, is strong evidence [that the legislature intended to leave the determination of alimony solely within the discretion of the court].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Henriksen v. Cameron
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.