Chastain v. Chastain’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris (1980), 601 So. 2d 534 - Pimm v. Pimm (1992)
50 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 54 So. 2d 36 - Schiff v. Schiff · Fleischer v. Fleischer
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Chastain v. Chastain, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 66, 68 , which is cited and relied on by the appellant, the Supreme Court said: ‘ * * * A final decree of divorce awarding alimony should not be modified as to alimony without a strong showing that the husband’s ability to pay has depreciated. The burden is. upon the complaining party to make this strong showing. Income alone is not necessarily the test in determining ability to pay. As pointed out by the Chancellor in the final decree awarding-divorce and fixing alimony, “one must consider the nature of his capital assets,, as well as his income.” ’ See also Terry v. Terry, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 890, 892 ; Howard v. Howard, Fla.App. 1960, 118 So.2d 90, 94 ; Platt v. Platt, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 253, 255 . In the Howard case the court said: ** * * In addition to income,, consideration must also be given to the extent and value of the husband’s capital assets. The manner in which title to-the husband’s assets is held is not necessarily controlling in determining his. ability to pay.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Knight v. Knight · Simon v. Simon“There was no appeal from the final decree of divorce awarding alimony and the time for appeal has long since expired. The needs, abilities and faculties of the parties were settled in that final decree and are now res adjudicata, except that of modifying the decree as to alimony in accordance with the public policy of the State as it existed and as it is now declared to be by F.S. § 65.15, F.S.A. [now renumbered as 61.14]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Prout v. Prout“An order modifying a final decree as to alimony should be made based upon a clear and strong showing with regard to changed circumstances and the financial ability of the husband to pay.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Glass v. Glass
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.