Elliot v. Elliot’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2010
10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 26 Tenn. App. 641 - Hicks v. Hicks · Lancaster v. Lancaster · Duncan v. Duncan · Jones v. Jones · Threadgill v. Threadgill
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The party seeking relief on the grounds of changed circumstances has the burden of proving the changed circumstances justifying an increase or decrease in the amount of the alimony award, (citation omitted). The change in circumstances must be shown to have occurred after the entry of the divorce decree, and must not have been foreseeable at the time the decree was entered into, (citation omitted). Changes in circumstances are not material if such changes were in the contemplation of the parties at the time they entered into the Support and Alimony Agreement, (citation omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Givler v. Givler
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.