Rykiel v. Rykiel’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
12 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 71
Relies on 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris · Burnet v. Harmel · Richardson v. Commissioner · 565 So. 2d 820 - Gentile v. Gentile · 686 So. 2d 762 - White v. White
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although a trial court may request, as it did in this case, that counsel for both parties submit a proposed final judgment, the court may not adopt the judgment verbatim, blindly, or without making in-court findings. Review of the findings and conclusions of such a judgment is hampered or made impossible by the trial court's lack of participation. In this case, the record contains no findings or conclusions by the trial court, and the final judgment has no corrections, additions or deletions on its face. Under these circumstances, meaningful review by this court is impossible.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Further, [an obvious error was] made with regard to the alimony award. First, the court ordered that the award of permanent periodic alimony be nontaxable to the receiving party, the former wife. This award cannot stand because there is no legal authority which would permit such a practice. Permanent periodic alimony (i.e., support money) is taxable to the recipient under federal income tax law. 26 U.S.C.A. § 71 . Its taxability cannot be changed by a state court order. State law creates legal interests, but federal law determines how those interests shall be taxed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rykiel v. Rykiel“Richardson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 125 F.3d 551, 556 (7th Cir. 1997). A reading of 26 U.S.C. § 71 and 26 C.F.R. § 1.71 -1T, as a whole, convinces us that only the parties may agree to this in a written document, or on the record before the trial judge, which would be reduced to judgment. The dicta cited by appellee in Almodovar v. Almodovar, 754 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), is based upon 26 C.F.R. § 1.71 -1T. Rykiel, 795 So.2d at 93 n. 1. Karen Rykiel (”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rykiel v. Rykiel
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.