738 So. 2d 763 - Driste v. Driste’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]llowing evidence of fault in an alimony determination is a factor specifically listed in Armstrong. Nothing in that case indicates such a factor may only be considered in a fault-based divorce.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 917 So. 2d 111 - Patterson v. Patterson · 851 So. 2d 384 - Burge v. Burge

2. “Applying the Armstrong factors for determining alimony, we are especially concerned about the great disparity in income and earning capacity of the parties, the standard of living and resulting expenses that Mrs. Driste had acquired, and the general equity owed to both parties in a divorce. Armstrong, 618 So.2d at 1280 . Considering all these factors, the chancellor's award of $ 20,000 in lump sum alimony, $ 750 for 18 months in rehabilitative alimony, and no periodic alimony is grossly inadequate. Jeanne Driste's total alimony award comes to only $ 33,500, paid over 22 months. During that period Mr. Driste is projected to have earned a gross income of close to $ 200,000. That income will continue well past 22 months, while the contribution to Mrs. Driste ends. The total of $ 33,500 in payments is the equivalent of providing only $ 750 per month (the rehabilitative award that ends in 18 months) for less than four years, a period during which Mr. Driste would have earned close to $ 400,000. We find this inadequate substitution for meaningful support of Mrs. Driste and reverse all the alimony determinations for further proceedings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 995 So. 2d 743 - Jones v. Jones

3. “[e]ight years is not a particularly long marriage. The disparity of gross income, however, is large, and the chancellor made specific note of that fact.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 995 So. 2d 743 - Jones v. Jones