45 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2025Robinson v. Robinson, 795 So. 2d 729, 734 (Ala. Civ. 2025Robinson v. Robinson, 795 So. 2d 729, 734 (Ala. Civ. | 19 | 37 |
Stone v. Stonegreen2 sentences2025In determining such an equitable division, "the trial court must consider factors such as the earning capacities of the parties; their future prospects; their ages, health, and station in life; the length of the parties' marriage; and the source, value, and type of marital property." Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232, 1236 (Ala. Civ. 2013Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So.2d 230 (Ala.Civ.App.2001); Stone v. Stone, supra; and Parrish v. Parrish, supra. In fashioning a property division and an award of alimony, the trial court must consider factors such as the earning capacities of the parties; their future prospects; their ages, health, and stations in life; the length of the marriage; and the source, value, and type of marital property. | 11 | 14 |
Yohey v. Yoheygreen2 sentences2016Robinson v.Robinson, 795 So.2d 729, 734 (Ala. Civ.App.2001). “[W]e note that there is no rigid standard or mathematical formula on which a trial court must base its determination of alimony and the division of marital assets,” Yohey v. Yohey, 890 So.2d 160, 164 (Ala.Civ. 2015Robinson v. Robinson, 795 So.2d 729, 734 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). “[W]e note that there is no rigid standard or mathematical formula on which a trial court must base its determination of alimony and the division of marital assets.” Yohey v. Yohey, 890 So.2d 160, 164 (Ala.Civ.App.2004).’ “Stone v. Stone, 26 So.3d 1232, 1236 (Ala.Civ.App.2009).” Rieger v. Rieger, 147 So.3d 421, 428-29 (Ala.Civ.App.2013). | 8 | 8 |
Glover v. Glovergreen2 sentences2013Korn v. Korn, 867 So.2d at 347 ; Glover v. Glover, 678 So.2d 174, 176 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). 2013Korn v. Korn, 867 So.2d 338, 347 (Ala.Civ.App.2003); Glover v. Glover, 678 So.2d 174, 176 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). | 3 | 3 |
Roberts v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2013Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So.2d 230 (Ala.Civ.App.2001); Stone v. Stone, supra; and Parrish v. Parrish, supra. In fashioning a property division and an award of alimony, the trial court must consider factors such as the earning capacities of the parties; their future prospects; their ages, health, and stations in life; the length of the marriage; and the source, value, and type of marital property. 2002Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So.2d 230, 233 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). | 2 | 3 |
Korn v. Korngreen2 sentences2013Korn v. Korn, 867 So.2d at 347 ; Glover v. Glover, 678 So.2d 174, 176 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). 2013Korn v. Korn, 867 So.2d 338, 347 (Ala.Civ.App.2003); Glover v. Glover, 678 So.2d 174, 176 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). | 2 | 3 |
Rieger v. Riegergreen1 sentence2015Robinson v. Robinson, 795 So.2d 729, 734 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). “[W]e note that there is no rigid standard or mathematical formula on which a trial court must base its determination of alimony and the division of marital assets.” Yohey v. Yohey, 890 So.2d 160, 164 (Ala.Civ.App.2004).’ “Stone v. Stone, 26 So.3d 1232, 1236 (Ala.Civ.App.2009).” Rieger v. Rieger, 147 So.3d 421, 428-29 (Ala.Civ.App.2013). | 1 | 1 |
Huggins v. Hugginsgreen2 sentences2013See Huggins v. Huggins, 57 Ala.App. 691, 695 , 331 So.2d 704, 707 (Ala.Civ.App.1976) (“[T]he sufficiency of the wife’s estate is a necessary element in the trial court’s determination regarding alimony.”); and Stone v. Stone, 26 So.3d 1232, 1236 (Ala. Civ.App.2009) (“In fashioning a property division and an award of alimony, the trial court must consider factors such as the earning capacities of the parties; their future prospects; their ages, health, and station in life; the length of the parties’ marriage; and the source, value, and type of marital property.”). 2013See Huggins v. Huggins, 57 Ala.App. 691, 695 , 331 So.2d 704, 707 (Ala.Civ.App.1976) (“[T]he sufficiency of the wife’s estate is a necessary element in the trial court’s determination regarding alimony.”); and Stone v. Stone, 26 So.3d 1232, 1236 (Ala. Civ.App.2009) (“In fashioning a property division and an award of alimony, the trial court must consider factors such as the earning capacities of the parties; their future prospects; their ages, health, and station in life; the length of the parties’ marriage; and the source, value, and type of marital property.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lutz v. Lutz
green
2 sentences2016Robinson v. Robinson, [ 795 So.2d 729 (Ala.Civ.App.2001)]; Lutz v. Lutz, 485 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). 2015Robinson v. Robinson, [ 795 So.2d 729 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) ]; Lutz v. Lutz, 485 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). | 12 | 2002–2016 |
Parrish v. Parrish
green
2 sentences2013Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So.2d 230 (Ala.Civ.App.2001); Stone v. Stone, supra; and Parrish v. Parrish, supra. In fashioning a property division and an award of alimony, the trial court must consider factors such as the earning capacities of the parties; their future prospects; their ages, health, and stations in life; the length of the marriage; and the source, value, and type of marital property. 2004Parrish v. Parrish , supra. In fashioning a property division and an award of alimony, the trial court must consider factors such as the earning capacities of the parties; their future prospects; their ages, health, and station in life; the length of the marriage; and the source, value, and type of marital property. | 3 | 2003–2013 |
Duckett v. Duckett
green
2 sentences2004Duckett v. Duckett, 669 So.2d 195 (Ala.Civ.App.1995); Parrish, supra. In fashioning a property division and an award of alimony, the trial court must consider factors such as the earning capacities of the parties; their future prospects; their ages and health; the length of the parties’ marriage; and the source, value, and type of marital property. 2003Duckett v. Duckett, 669 So.2d 195 (Ala.Civ.App.1995); Parrish, supra. In fashioning a property division and an award of alimony, the trial court must consider factors such as the earning capacities of the parties; their future prospects; their ages and health; the length of the parties’ marriage; and the source, value, and type of marital property. | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Phillips v. Thomas
green
1 sentence1992Phillips v. Thomas , 555 So.2d 81 (Ala. 1989). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.