Prell v. Silverstein’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2022
8 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 Lewis v. Lewis · Gussin v. Gussin · Bratton v. Bratton · 386 So. 2d 749 - Barnhill v. Barnhill · 8 Haw. App. 461 - Gardner v. Gardner
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.
“[Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)] § 580-47 (2006 Repl.) provides ... in relevant part, as follows: Support orders; division of property. (a) Upon granting a divorce, or thereafter if, in addition to the powers granted in subsections (e) and (d), jurisdiction of those matters is reserved under the decree by agreement of both parties or by order of court after finding that good cause exists, the court may make any further orders as shall appear just and equitable (1) compelling the parties or either of them to provide for the support, maintenance, and education of the children of the parties; (2) compelling either party to provide for the support and maintenance of the other party; (3) finally dividing and distributing the estate of the parties, real, personal, or mixed, whether community, joint, or separate; and (4) allocating, as between the parties, the responsibility for the payment of the debts of the parties whether community, joint, or separate, and the attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred by each party by reason of the divorce. In making these further orders, the court shall take into consideration: the respective merits of the parties, the relative abilities of the parties, the condition in which each party will be left by the divorce, the burdens imposed upon either party for the benefit of the children of the parties, and all other circumstances of the case. [[Image here]] The Hawaii Supreme Court has stated that the foregoing statute confers “wide discretion ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]nfair surprise means 'that one party did not have full and adequate knowledge of the other party's financial condition when the [marital] agreement was executed.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Meyers v. Meyers.
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.