Higgins v. Higgins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"deals solely with the correction of clerical errors. Errors of a more substantial nature are to be corrected by a motion under Rules 59(e) or 60(b). Thus, the Rule 60(a) motion can only be used to make the judgment or record speak the truth and cannot be used to make it say something other than what was originally pronounced."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State · S.S. v. Calhoun County Department of Human Resources

2. “"`"The object of a Rule 60(a)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] motion or a judgment nunc pro tune is to make the judgment or the record speak the truth. Under Rule 60(a) a correction may be made by the trial court at any time. "`"The trial court's authority to enter a Rule 60(a) order or a judgment nunc pro tune is not unbridled. It cannot be used to enlarge or modify a judgment or to make a judgment say something other than what was originally said. If the mistake involves an exercise of judicial discretion, any correction is beyond the scope of Rule 60(a) and should properly be effected under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.]" "` McGiboney v. McGiboney , 679 So.2d 1066 , 1068 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995) (citations omitted). "`Chief Justice Torbert explained the proper application of Rule 60(a) in his special concurrence in Ex parte Continental Oil Co. , 370 So.2d 953 , 955-56 (Ala. 1979): "`"Although there is no precise delineation in the cases construing Rule 60(a) of the [Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure] or its federal counterpart as to what constitutes a `clerical mistake or error arising from oversight or omission,' generally it can be said that the rule allows the correction of errors of a ministerial nature in order to reflect what was actually intended at the time of entry of the order. The rule contemplates the type of error associated with mistakes in transcription, alteration, or omission of any papers and documents — a mistake mechanical in nature which does not involve a ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 991 So. 2d 212 - Pierce v. American General Finance, Inc. · 41 So. 3d 751 - BMJA, LLC v. Murphy

3. “"To quote Justice Maddox's dissent in Harrison v. Alabama Power Co., 371 So.2d 19, 21 (Ala.1979), `today's decision . . . is too technical, and therefore, unjust.' I agree with the rationale as stated in Justice Bolin's special concurrence in State v. Redtop Market, Inc., 937 So.2d 1013, 1016 (Ala.2006), and posit that perhaps this case will present an opportunity for the Supreme Court of Alabama to revisit its overly technical interpretation of Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., regarding the adequacy of language expressing consent to extend the 90-day period for ruling on a postjudgment motion. I concur in the result solely because I am constrained by the precedents and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Alabama. Quality Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ruben, 962 So.2d 234, 240 (Ala. Civ.App.2006) ('[the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals] is bound by the precedents established by the Supreme Court of Alabama'); see also § 12-3-16, Ala. Code 1975."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Traylor v. Traylor