Compton v. Compton’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Roselli v. Rio Communities Service Station, Inc. (1990), DeLancey v. DeLancey (1986)
42 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · United States v. Throckmorton · 32 Cal. 2d 13 - Jorgensen v. Jorgensen · Shammas v. Shammas · Suter v. Suter
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This fiduciary duty extends to the parties’ negotiations leading to the formation of the property settlement agreement during marriage, and requires, at least, a disclosure by both parties of all information within their knowledge regarding the existence of community property and of pertinent facts necessary to arrive at a reasonable valuation of the property. Like a business partner, each spouse is free to adopt a position favorable to himself or herself regarding the property’s valuation, its inclusion in the community, or other such issues. They are not free, however, to resolve such issues unilaterally by concealing the very existence of particular items or amounts of property.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bodine v. Bodine · Bodine v. Bodine“[T]he independent action in equity is a most unusual remedy, available only rarely and under the most exceptional circumstances. It is most certainly not its function to relitigate issues determined in another action between the same parties, or to remedy the inadvertence or oversight of one of the parties to the original action. It will lie only in the presence of an extreme degree of fraud.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““The term ‘fraud upon the court’ contemplates more than interparty misconduct, and, in Idaho, has been held to require more than perjury or misrepresentation by a party or witness, even where the misrepresentation was made to establish the court’s jurisdiction. [Citation.] Apparently such fraud will be found only in the presence of such ‘tampering with the administration of justice’ as to suggest ‘a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public.’ [Citations.]” Compton, supra, 101 Idaho at 334 , 612 P.2d at 1181 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. Parrish · Rae v. Bunce
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.