Alexander v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1161 (§ 601 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on 646 So. 2d 46 - Ex Parte Perkins · Ex Parte Couch · O'Neal v. O'Neal · 565 So. 2d 212 - Sea Calm Shipping Co., S.A. v. Cooks · 613 So. 2d 347 - Spradlin v. Birmingham Airport Authority
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The division of property and the award of alimony are interrelated, and appellate courts review the entire judgment in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion as to either issue. - “A court has no fixed standard to follow in awarding alimony or in dividing marital property[; r]ather the award or division need only be equitable and be supported by the particular facts of the case.” Because we review the award of alimony and the division of marital property together to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, and because we are reversing the trial court’s judgment insofar as it awards the wife a portion of the funds in the husband’s [retirement account], we must also reverse the trial court’s judgment as to the property division and alimony award in its entirety. Upon remand, the trial court may adjust those awards so as to create an equitable property division between the parties.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Colgan v. Colgan““Although, by statute, a trial court may include in the estate of either spouse ‘the present value of any future or current retirement benefits[ ] that a spouse may have a vested interest in ... on the date the action for divorce is filed,’ that court may do so only when certain conditions are met, one of which is that ‘[t]he parties have been married for a period of 10 years during which the retirement was being accumulated.’ Ala.Code 1975, § 30-2-51(b).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Colgan v. Colgan
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.