Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 624 So. 2d 620 - Murphy v. Murphy

624 So. 2d 620 - Murphy v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably 785 So. 2d 358 - Ex Parte Drummond (2000), Ex Parte Foley (2003)

36 state decisions

210199320002010decided

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 Hager v. Hager · 485 So. 2d 1174 - Lutz v. Lutz · Wiggins v. Wiggins · Prestwood v. Prestwood · Thompson v. Thompson

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'[P]roperty divisions are not required to be equal, but must be equitable in light of the evidence, and the determination as to what is equitable rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"`"`Alimony in gross' is the present value of the wife's inchoate marital rights — dower, homestead, quarantine, and distributive share. It is payable out of the husband's present estate as it exists at the time of divorce. "' Murphy v. Murphy, 624 So.2d 620, 622 (Ala.Civ. App.1993), quoting Hager v. Hager 293 Ala. 47 , 299 So.2d 743 (1974) (emphasis added [in Zinnerman ])."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““The trial court, on its own, determined that its initial disposition of the retirement funds was in error. We agree with that determination. It appears, however, that the amended disposition was an effort to indirectly do what the existing law prohibits. This court recognizes the heinous conduct of the husband. However, such conduct does not change the law of marital property. It is required that we reverse the trial court’s award of alimony in gross. Thompson v. Thompson, 532 So.2d 1027 (Ala.Civ.App.1988).””
    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.