Ex Parte Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

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

1. ““substitute its judgment of the facts for that of the [trial] court. Rea v. Rea, 599 So.2d 1206 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). Instead, our task is simply to determine if there was sufficient evidence before the [trial] court to support its decision against a charge or arbitrariness and abuse of discretion. Peterman v. Peterman, 510 So.2d 822 (Ala.Civ.App.1987).””

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Wallace v. Wallace · Ex Parte Elliott

2. “"`It is well established in Alabama that the modification of an alimony provision based upon changed circumstances is a matter that rests within the circuit court's sound discretion. Furthermore, the ore tenus standard is applied to the ruling of the circuit court; thus, a presumption of correctness attaches to the ruling and the ruling will not be reversed unless it is not supported by the evidence and is clearly an abuse of the court's discretion.. . .'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Scott v. Scott · Luce v. Luce

3. “"It is well established in Alabama that the modification of an alimony provision based upon changed circumstances is a matter that rests within the circuit court's sound discretion. Furthermore, the ore tenus standard is applied to the ruling of the circuit court; thus, a presumption of correctness attaches to the ruling and the ruling will not be reversed unless it is not supported by the evidence and is clearly an abuse of the court's discretion. In Ex parte Jackson , 567 So.2d 867 (Ala. 1990), this Court specifically set out the standard of review applicable in a case involving alimony in which the circuit court hears oral testimony on conflicting evidence. We held: " 'Issues involving alimony and the payment of marital debts are within the sound discretion of the trial judge in a divorce action. The judge's ruling on these matters will not be disturbed unless it is a plain and palpable abuse of discretion.' 567 So.2d at 868 . See also Paajanen v. Paajanen , 600 So.2d 293 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992), and Brown v. Brown , 586 So.2d 919 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991). "Thus, when this Court or the Court of Civil Appeals reviews a circuit court's order, it is not to substitute its judgment of the facts for that of the circuit court. Rea v. Rea , 599 So.2d 1206 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992). Instead, our task is simply to determine if there was sufficient evidence before the circuit court to support its decision against a charge of arbitrariness and abuse of discretion. Peterman v. Peterman , 510 So.2d 82”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Millard v. Millard