611 So. 2d 1113 - Nelson v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2010
7 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 Blankenship v. Blankenship · Kabaci v. Kabaci · 385 So. 2d 1323 - Allen v. Allen · Jordan v. Jordan · 471 So. 2d 426 - Golson v. Golson
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.
“"[W]e point out to the trial court that this court has previously stated that the fact that one spouse has retirement benefits as an asset can be weighed by the trial court in effecting a just property division or in awarding alimony in gross. Rowe v. Rowe , 601 So.2d 1048 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992). We would further note that, at trial, the husband stated that it would be equitable for the trial court to award the wife one-half of the amount that he had contributed to his retirement plan."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"While there is voluminous and conflicting evidence as to the marital estate in the record, it is possible to infer that the trial court awarded the wife assets worth approximately $91,000, and that the husband was awarded assets worth approximately $97,000, not including inherited property that the husband was awarded outright. Suffice it to say that we find these respective amounts to be equitable in view of the relevant factors. . . ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“one-half of the approximately $93,000 in this plan was contributed by the husband through payroll deductions, and that one-half of the amount in the plan was contributed by the husband's employer.”
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.