Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Elliottgreen2 sentences2012See Golden v. Golden, 681 So.2d 605, 608 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); see also Ex parte Elliott, 782 So.2d 308, 311-12 (Ala.2000), and Morrison v. Morrison, 540 So.2d 80, 81 (Ala.Civ.App.1989) (affirming division of property under which one spouse was awarded all the marital real property). “ ‘A court has no fixed standard to follow in awarding alimony or in dividing marital property[; rjather the award or division need only be equitable and be supported by the particular facts of the case.’ Ex parte Elliott, 782 So.2d at 311 ; see also Hall v. Hall, 895 So.2d 299, 303 (Ala.Civ.App.2004). 2012See Golden v. Golden, 681 So.2d 605, 608 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); see also Ex parte Elliott, 782 So.2d 308, 311-12 (Ala.2000), and Morrison v. Morrison, 540 So.2d 80, 81 (Ala.Civ.App.1989) (affirming division of property under which one spouse was awarded all the marital real property). “ ‘A court has no fixed standard to follow in awarding alimony or in dividing marital property[; rjather the award or division need only be equitable and be supported by the particular facts of the case.’ Ex parte Elliott, 782 So.2d at 311 ; see also Hall v. Hall, 895 So.2d 299, 303 (Ala.Civ.App.2004). | 7 | 10 |
Hall v. Hallgreen2 sentences2012See Golden v. Golden, 681 So.2d 605, 608 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); see also Ex parte Elliott, 782 So.2d 308, 311-12 (Ala.2000), and Morrison v. Morrison, 540 So.2d 80, 81 (Ala.Civ.App.1989) (affirming division of property under which one spouse was awarded all the marital real property). “ ‘A court has no fixed standard to follow in awarding alimony or in dividing marital property[; rjather the award or division need only be equitable and be supported by the particular facts of the case.’ Ex parte Elliott, 782 So.2d at 311 ; see also Hall v. Hall, 895 So.2d 299, 303 (Ala.Civ.App.2004). 2011“A court has no fixed standard to follow in awarding alimony or in dividing marital property!; rjather the award or division need only be equitable and be supported by the particular facts of the case.” Ex parte Elliott, 782 So.2d at 311 ; see also Hall v. Hall, 895 So.2d 299, 303 (Ala.Civ.App.2004). | 2 | 3 |
O'Neal v. O'Nealgreen2 sentences2010See O’Neal v. O’Neal, 678 So.2d 161 , 164 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). ‘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.’ Ex parte Elliott, 782 So;2d 308, 311 (Ala.2000). 2007See O'Neal v. O'Neal , 678 So.2d 161 , 164 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996). `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.' Ex parte Elliott , 782 So.2d 308 , 311 (Ala. 2000). | 2 | 2 |
Sumerlin v. Sumerlingreen1 sentence2016Upon remand, the trial court may adjust those awards so as to create an equitable property division between the parties.’ ” Alexander, 985 So.2d at 493 (quoting Sumerlin v. Sumerlin, 964 So.2d 47, 50 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (internal citations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Morrison v. Morrisongreen1 sentence2012See Golden v. Golden, 681 So.2d 605, 608 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); see also Ex parte Elliott, 782 So.2d 308, 311-12 (Ala.2000), and Morrison v. Morrison, 540 So.2d 80, 81 (Ala.Civ.App.1989) (affirming division of property under which one spouse was awarded all the marital real property). “ ‘A court has no fixed standard to follow in awarding alimony or in dividing marital property[; rjather the award or division need only be equitable and be supported by the particular facts of the case.’ Ex parte Elliott, 782 So.2d at 311 ; see also Hall v. Hall, 895 So.2d 299, 303 (Ala.Civ.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Golden v. Goldengreen1 sentence2012See Golden v. Golden, 681 So.2d 605, 608 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); see also Ex parte Elliott, 782 So.2d 308, 311-12 (Ala.2000), and Morrison v. Morrison, 540 So.2d 80, 81 (Ala.Civ.App.1989) (affirming division of property under which one spouse was awarded all the marital real property). “ ‘A court has no fixed standard to follow in awarding alimony or in dividing marital property[; rjather the award or division need only be equitable and be supported by the particular facts of the case.’ Ex parte Elliott, 782 So.2d at 311 ; see also Hall v. Hall, 895 So.2d 299, 303 (Ala.Civ.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Nowell v. Nowellgreen2 sentences2006Rather, the award or division need only be equitable and be supported by the particular facts of the case. . . . `[T]he [circuit] court should consider several factors, including the length of the marriage, the age and health of the parties, the future employment prospects of the parties, the source, value, and type of property owned, and the standard of living to which the parties have become accustomed during the marriage.'" (Quoting Nowell v. Nowell, 474 So.2d 1128, 1129 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); footnote omitted.) Additionally, "[t]he only limitation on a trial court's broad discretion in dividi 2006Kather, the award or division need only be equitable and be supported by the particular facts of the case. . . . `[T]he [circuit] court should consider several factors, including the length of the marriage, the age and health of the parties, the future employment prospects of the parties, the source, value, and type of property owned, and the standard of living to which the parties have become accustomed during the marriage.'" (Quoting Nowell v. Nowell , 474 So.2d 1128 , 1129 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985); footnote omitted.) Additionally, "[t]he only limitation on a trial court's broad discretion in div | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alexander v. Alexander
green
1 sentence2016Upon remand, the trial court may adjust those awards so as to create an equitable property division between the parties.’ ” Alexander, 985 So.2d at 493 (quoting Sumerlin v. Sumerlin, 964 So.2d 47, 50 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (internal citations omitted)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Cantrell v. Cantrell
green
2 sentences2006Rather, the award or division need only be equitable and be supported by the particular facts of the case. . . . `[T]he [circuit] court should consider several factors, including the length of the marriage, the age and health of the parties, the future employment prospects of the parties, the source, value, and type of property owned, and the standard of living to which the parties have become accustomed during the marriage.'" (Quoting Nowell v. Nowell, 474 So.2d 1128, 1129 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); footnote omitted.) Additionally, "[t]he only limitation on a trial court's broad discretion in dividi 2006Kather, the award or division need only be equitable and be supported by the particular facts of the case. . . . `[T]he [circuit] court should consider several factors, including the length of the marriage, the age and health of the parties, the future employment prospects of the parties, the source, value, and type of property owned, and the standard of living to which the parties have become accustomed during the marriage.'" (Quoting Nowell v. Nowell , 474 So.2d 1128 , 1129 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985); footnote omitted.) Additionally, "[t]he only limitation on a trial court's broad discretion in div | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.