Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
March 1983
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 392 So. 2d 1177 - Cougar Min. Co. v. MINERAL LAND & MIN. CONSULT. INC. · Lee v. Menefield · 360 So. 2d 340 - Price v. Price · 346 So. 2d 1133 - Costanza v. Costanza
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.
“"The evidence is unclear as to whether there was an agreement between the parties that appellee would pay the mortgage in exchange for rent-free occupancy of the home. Appellant himself states *Page 1053 that he allowed appellee to remain in the home free of any obligation for a short while after the divorce. In fact, appellant's insistence that he made the mortgage payments from the period following the divorce to 1978 or 1979 refutes the existence of such an agreement. This and the fact that appellant took no steps to oust appellee from the house until 1979 support the conclusion that appellee was allowed to remain in possession of the premises with no obligation to make mortgage payments or to pay a reasonable rental value." (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"Such conduct on appellant's part is clearly a misrepresentation of the true state of facts. Misrepresentations as to title would, in our opinion, be sufficiently improper conduct to support the imposition of an equitable lien as security for the repayment of expenditures made on the basis of those misrepresentations. We cannot reverse the trial court on this contention."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Appellant lastly contends that, in the absence of evidence of improper conduct on his part, the imposition of an equitable lien upon his property was erroneous. As support for his contention he cites the case of Costanza v. Costanza , 346 So.2d 1133 (Ala. 1977), in which the Alabama Supreme Court stated:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.