934 So. 2d 1070 - Pate v. Guy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On the other hand, sanctions for civil contempt may exceed those limits and may continue indefinitely until the contemnor performs as ordered.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. J.S. v. L.M. · K.L.R. v. K.G.S.

2. “"In general, civil contempt seeks to compel compliance with a juvenile court's judgment or order, while criminal contempt imposes punishment for failure to obey a judgment or order of the court. Rule 70A, Ala. R. Civ. P.; see also State v. Thomas , 550 So.2d 1067 , 1072 (Ala. 1989). An essential element of a finding of criminal contempt is that such a finding is intended to punish the contemnor, while a finding of civil contempt seeks to compel future compliance with court orders. See generally Chestang v. Chestang , 769 So.2d 294 (Ala. 2000). Sanctions for criminal contempt are limited by statute to a maximum fine of $100 and imprisonment not to exceed five days. See Ala. Code 1975, § 12-11-30(5). On the other hand, sanctions for civil contempt may exceed those limits and may continue indefinitely until the contemnor performs as ordered. "... In Chestang v. Chestang , supra , our Supreme Court reviewed the provisions of Rule 70(A), Ala. R. Civ. P., the rule that governs contempt in civil cases. The Supreme Court noted that Rule 70A(a)(2)(C) defines two types of criminal contempt: (1) misconduct that obstructs the administration of justice and (2) willful disobedience or resistance to a court order or judgment ' "where the dominant purpose of the finding of contempt is to punish the contemnor." ' Chestang , 769 So.2d at 297 -98 ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 258 So. 3d 348 - C.N.M. v. J.D.D. · 215 So. 3d 1079 - Kent v. Herchenhan

3. ““we note that the legislature enacted § 30-2-54, Ala.Code 1975, to allow an attorney-fee award to a prevailing party in actions for divorce or to recover un paid child-support, alimony, or maintenance awards. The pertinent ‘action’ in this case [in which the mother was the prevailing party] concerned child visitation, not support, and § 30-2-54, Ala. Code 1975, thus does not apply.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 215 So. 3d 1079 - Kent v. Herchenhan