95 Ark. App. 83 - Valetutti v. Valetutti’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2023
18 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 79 Ark. App. 178 - Davis v. Davis · Russell v. Russell · Harvey v. Harvey · 60 Ark. App. 221 - Anderson v. Anderson · 61 Ark. App. 88 - Mitchell v. Mitchell
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“|1ftAn award of alimony is a question that addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial court. See McKay v. McKay, 340 Ark. 171 , 8 S.W.3d 525 (2000); Bums v. Bums, 312 Ark. 61 , 847 S.W.2d 23 (1993). This court has held that the trial court can make an award of alimony that is reasonable under the circumstances. See Mulling v. Mulling, 323 Ark. 88 , 912 S.W.2d 934 (1996) (citing Harvey v. Harvey, 295 Ark. 102 , 747 S.W.2d 89 (1988)). The purpose of alimony is to rectify economic imbalances in earning power and standard of living in light of the particular facts in each case. Mulling, supra. The primary factors that a court should consider in determining whether to award alimony are the financial need of one spouse and the other spouse’s ability to pay. Harvey v. Harvey, 295 Ark. 102 , 747 S.W.2d 89 (1988); see also Valetutti v. Valetutti 95 ArkApp. 83, 234 S.W.3d 338 (2006). The trial court should also consider the following secondary factors: (1) the financial circumstances of both parties; (2) the amount and nature of the income, both current and anticipated, of both parties; (3) the extent and nature of the resources and assets of each of the parties; (4) the earning ability and capacity of both parties. See Anderson v. Anderson, 60 ArkApp. 221, 963 S.W.2d 604 (1998). The amount of alimony should not be reduced to a mathematical formula because the need for flexibility outweighs the need for relative certainty. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 61 ArkApp. 88, 964 S.W.2d ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brave v. Brave
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.