Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 111 N.C. App. 792 - Evans v. Evans

111 N.C. App. 792 - Evans v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
May 2000
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 659 (§ 459 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck · American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Merry · Tenneco Inc. v. First Virginia Bank of Tidewater · Cody v. Riecker · 32 Ohio App. 2d 139 - Brown v. Brown

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

  1. “an implied exemption to the anti-assignment provision . . . for domestic relation decrees authorizing the transfer of retirement benefits in satisfaction of support obligations. . . . Since the 1981 [consent] judgment in the case at bar and the implied exception followed by the majority of jurisdictions, Congress has amended the anti-alienation clause of ERISA. Known as the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 . . . Congress amended [29 U.S.C.] § 1056(d) by creating an exception for certain domestic relations orders . . . which were determined to be qualified domestic relations orders. . . . The 1984 amendment, however, has no retroactive effect on the 1981 judgment at issue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.