688 So. 2d 852 - Vick v. Vick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The judgment of a trial court based on ore tenus evidence is entitled to a presumption of correctness on appeal. Hermsmeier v. McCoy , 591 So.2d 508 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991). However, that presumption can be overcome when there is an absence of material evidence to support the trial court's factual findings. Means v. Means , 512 So.2d 1386 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987). Thus, while issues concerning child custody are within the sound discretion of the trial court, that judgment will be reversed if it is so unsupported by the evidence that it is plainly and palpably wrong. Hermsmeier , supra , at 509 ; Glover v. Singleton , 598 So.2d 995 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). "A parent seeking to modify a previous custody order bears a heavy burden of proof. The parent must prove that a material change in circumstances has occurred since the prior judgment, and that a change of custody will materially promote the child's best interest and that the benefits of the change will more than offset the inherently disruptive effect caused by uprooting the child. Ex parte McLendon , 455 So.2d 863 , 866 (Ala. 1984). The evidence must be so substantial as to show an obvious and overwhelming necessity for a change. Klapal v. Brannon , 610 So.2d 1167 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992)."”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sg v. Pc · Tjh v. Snf

2. “"The judgment of a trial court based on ore tenus evidence is entitled to a presumption of correctness on appeal. Hermsmeier v. McCoy , 591 So.2d 508 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991). However, that presumption can be overcome when there is an absence of material evidence to support the trial court's factual findings. Means v. Means , 512 So.2d 1386 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987). Thus, while issues concerning child custody are within the sound discretion of the trial court, that judgment will be reversed if it is so unsupported by the evidence that it is plainly and palpably wrong. Hermsmeie r , supra, at 509; Glover v. Singleton , 598 So.2d 995 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992). "A parent seeking to modify a previous custody order bears a heavy burden of proof. The parent must prove that a material change in circumstances has occurred since the prior judgment, and that a change of custody will materially promote the child's best interest and that the benefits of the change will more than offset the inherently disruptive effect caused by uprooting the child. Ex parte McLendon , 455 So.2d 863 , 866 (Ala. 1984). The evidence must be so substantial as to show an obvious and overwhelming necessity for a change. Klapal v. Brannon , 610 So.2d 1167 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992). "The father petitioned for modification, based on his assertion that the mother refused to recognize his visitation rights, to the detriment of the children. . . . [There was no] allegation that the mother was unfit to care for the children. . . . ". . . ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 793 So. 2d 821 - Kelley v. Akers

3. “"The evidence presented by the father's witnesses disclosed nothing more than that the father was denied visitation. . . . Because the evidence presented by the father fell short of meeting his stringent burden of proof, we hold that the trial court's judgment is so unsupported by material evidence as to make that judgment plainly and palpably wrong. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. "In issuing this opinion, we are not suggesting that parents should be allowed to violate visitation orders or that when one parent does so the other parent should be without recourse. However, there are other, more appropriate, methods for enforcing visitation rights, such as contempt proceedings or even motions to clarify the order regarding visitation rights. Transferring custody is rarely an appropriate method of enforcing visitation rights because such changes have the effect of punishing the children for their parents' noncompliance . Transferring custody creates the very instability in the lives of the children that the McLendon standard was designed to prevent. "The judgment of the trial court changing custody from the mother to the father is hereby reversed and a judgment is entered restoring custody to the mother."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 793 So. 2d 821 - Kelley v. Akers