Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 741 So. 2d 420 - Smith v. Smith

741 So. 2d 420 - Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
3
states following
December 2008
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Siragusa v. Siragusa · In Re Danley · Brabham v. Brabham (In Re Brabham) · 686 So. 2d 320 - Anderson v. Anderson · 628 So. 2d 885 - Thornburg v. Thornburg

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

  1. “If the modification is essentially a reinstatement of the property settlement under the guise of alimony, the modification violates section 524 and is not permitted.... Mere attempts to `end run' around a bankruptcy discharge are not allowed.... However, if the alimony modification merely takes into account the fact that one spouse would no longer receive the property settlement payments upon which the original support award was premised and the discharge results in changed financial circumstances, then modification will not violate federal bankruptcy law.”
    2 later decisions 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.