991 So. 2d 752 - Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' "The trial court's authority to enter a Rule 60(a) [, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] order or a judgment nunc pro tunc is not unbridled. Merchant v. Merchant , 599 So.2d 1198 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). It cannot be used to enlarge or modify a judgment or to make a judgment say something other than what was originally said. Michael [v. Michael , 454 So.2d 1035 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984) ].' " " ' McGiboney v. McGiboney , 679 So.2d 1066 , 1068 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). " ' "It is important to note that the object of a judgment nunc pro tunc or motion under rule 60(a) [, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] is to make the judgment or record speak the truth. Ward v. Ullery , 442 So.2d 99 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983). It cannot be used to modify or enlarge a judgment nor to make the judgment say something other than what was originally pronounced. Tombrello Coal Co. v. Fortenberry , 248 Ala. 640 , 29 So.2d 125 (1947) ; 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2854 (1973).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shapley v. State · A.T. v. D.M.

2. “impermissibly modified the record to say something other than what was originally pronounced.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 243 So. 3d 835 - K.P. v. Madison Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.