Meyer v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2023
14 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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1408
Relies on City of Grosse Pointe Park v. Michigan Municipal Liability & Property Pool · West End Sav. Bank v. Goodwin · Deliduka v. Deliduka · Atlas Assur. Co. v. Byrne · Winkleblack v. Murphy
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A divorce judgment should be interpreted or construed as other written instruments are interpreted or construed. Sartin v. Sartin , 678 So.2d 1181 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996). `The words of the agreement are to be given their ordinary meaning, and the intentions of the parties are to be derived from them.' Id. at 1183 . Whether an agreement is ambiguous is a question of law for the trial court. Wimpee v. Wimpee , 641 So.2d 287 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994). An agreement that by its terms is plain and free from ambiguity must be enforced as written. Jones v. Jones , 722 So.2d 768 (Ala.Civ.App. 1998). An ambiguity exists if the agreement is susceptible to more than one meaning. Vainrib v. Downey , 565 So.2d 647 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). However, if only one reasonable meaning clearly emerges, then the agreement is unambiguous. Id. "”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““When, through fraud, a mutual mistake of the parties or a mistake of one party which the other at the time knew or suspected, a written contract does not truly express the intention of the parties, it may be revised by a court on the application of the party aggrieved so as to express that intention, so far as it can be done without prejudice to the rights acquired by third persons in good faith and for value.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A patent ambiguity is one that is apparent upon the face of the instrument, arising by reason of inconsistency or uncertainty in the language employed. See McCollum v. Atkins, 912 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (quoting Jacoway v. Brittain, 360 So.2d 306, 308 (Ala.1978)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.