828 So. 2d 327 - Trss v. Rs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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

1. ““In reviewing [§ 30-3-4.1], it seems apparent that [the biological grandparents] sought to circumvent the restrictions of § 30-3-4.1(e)[ ] by filing a petition to intervene rather than an original action. Obviously no original action could be entertained by the trial court because ‘[a]n original action ... shall not be filed during any year in which another custody action has been filed.’ § 30-3-4.1(e), Ala.Code 1975. “On appeal R.S. and M.S. argue that, although their petition to intervene was filed within one calendar year from the filing of the original divorce complaint, they still complied with the statute. Their argument rests on the fact that the divorce complaint was filed in August 1999 and their petition for grandparent-visitation rights was filed in July 2000 — a different calendar year. We find this argument disingenuous at best. It is obvious on the face of the petition that it was not an original action, but instead it was an attempt to intervene in the divorce action. This fact is evidenced by the style and pleading of the petition as well as by the fact that the divorce case is referenced by number for intervention.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beck v. Beck · 64 So. 3d 32 - Jameson v. Jameson

2. “"`The right of grandparent visitation did not exist at common law but was instead created by legislative act.' Sanders v. Wright , 772 So.2d 470 , 471 (Ala.Civ.App. 2000), quoting C.Y. v. C.L. , 726 So.2d 733 , 734 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999). The statutory right of grandparent visitation must be strictly construed; it cannot extend to persons who do not fit the definition specified by the Legislature. See Chavers v. Hammac , 568 So.2d 1252 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990); Shoemaker v. Shoemaker , 563 So.2d 1032 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 984 So. 2d 415 - Thompson v. Thompson

3. “the custody of a minor child, a divorce proceeding of the parents or a parent of the minor child, or a termination of the parental rights proceeding of either parent of the minor child.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beck v. Beck