963 So. 2d 604 - Ex Parte Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`"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 ”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Brown · Johnson v. State

2. “' "A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available when a trial court has exceeded its discretion. Ex parte Fidelity Bank , 893 So.2d 1116 , 1119 (Ala. 2004). A writ of mandamus is 'appropriate when the petitioner can show (1) a clear legal right to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.' Ex parte BOC Group, Inc. , 823 So.2d 1270 , 1272 (Ala. 2001).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex parte Thompson Tractor Co. · Ex parte Gentry

3. “Upon the printing of the Final Order, there was a reversal of the parties, in that portion of the Order awarding custody. The Court is at a loss to explain what happened; however, it is clear if one reads the Final Judgment entered on April 18, 2006, it does not carry the parties' minor child by name.”

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