Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 749 So. 2d 223 - Ewing v. Ewing

749 So. 2d 223 - Ewing v. Ewing’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 689 So. 2d 770 - Bredemeier v. Jackson · 579 So. 2d 543 - Caldwell v. Caldwell · Milam v. Milam · McHenry v. State · Turpin v. Turpin

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. “When the chancellor sits as fact-finder in cases such as this, he is charged with assessing the credibility of the witnesses and deciding what weight to give to the testimony and evidence. Because he sees the witnesses first hand and can observe their temperament and demeanor, he is in a much better position to assess the worth of any particular testimony than is an appellate court reviewing only a written transcript. This necessarily requires that the chancellor be afforded substantial discretion in his evaluation of the probative value of the evidence. On appeal, our Court must give deference to the chancellor’s findings and may interfere with the chancellor’s findings of fact only if we are convinced that the chancellor has substantially abused the discretion afforded him in such matters.”
    1 later decision 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.