Durbin v. Durbin’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Krivo Industrial Supply Company and Morgan Precision Parts, Inc. v. National Distillers and Chemical Corporation · 675 So. 2d 377 - Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton · 617 So. 2d 1036 - Parrish v. Parrish · 519 So. 2d 525 - Montgomery v. Montgomery · 778 So. 2d 791 - Reed v. BD. OF TRUSTEES FOR AL. STATE UNIV.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(a) If either spouse has no separate estate or if it is insufficient for the maintenance of a spouse, the judge, upon granting a divorce, at his or her discretion, may order to a spouse an allowance out of the estate of the other spouse, taking into consideration the value thereof and the condition of the spouse's family. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the judge may not take into consideration any property acquired prior to the marriage of the parties or by inheritance or gift unless the judge finds from the evidence that the property, or income produced by the property, has been used regularly for the common benefit of the parties during their marriage."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"Section 30-2-51 states that if a party does not use his or her inheritance or gifts for the common benefit of the parties to the marriage, then the trial judge may not consider the inheritance or gifts when making a property division. Nothing in the statute states that if one party's inheritance or gifts are used for the parties' common benefit then the trial judge must consider the inheritance or gifts when making the property division. In fact, the statute leaves such a determination to the discretion of the trial judge. `[T]he judge, upon granting a divorce, at his or her discretion, may order to a spouse an allowance out of the estate of the other spouse, taking into consideration the value thereof and the condition of the spouse's family.' Section 30-2-51 (a), Ala. Code 1975."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"1. As noted above in the Findings of Fact, the Husband's property located at 1926 Queen City Avenue is not a marital asset and is not subject to a property division under Section 30-2-51 , [Ala. Code 1975], as amended, as there was no evidence that this property (which was owned by the Husband prior to the marriage), or the income produced by the property, was used regularly for the common benefit of the parties during the marriage. . . . "2. The Wife is vested with all right, title and interest in and to the following property, and the Husband is divested of any interest in said property:”
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.