Roberts v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 639 So. 2d 921 - Ferguson v. Ferguson · Armstrong v. Armstrong · 639 So. 2d 909 - Hemsley v. Hemsley · 637 So. 2d 850 - Chamblee v. Chamblee · 34 So. 3d 637 - Dickerson v. Dickerson
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) contribution to the accumulation of property, (2) dissipation of assets, (3) the market or emotional value of assets subject to distribution, (4) the value of assets not subject to distribution, (5) the tax and economic consequences of the distribution, (6) the extent to which property division may eliminate the need for alimony, (7) the financial security needs of the parties, and (8) any other factor that in equity should be considered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In light of [Ferguson ] and its progeny, when dividing marital property, “chancellors are to (1) classify the parties’ assets as marital or separate; (2) determine the value of those assets; (3) divide the marital estate equitably based upon the factors set forth in Ferguson ; and (4) consider the appropriateness of alimony if either party is left with a deficiency.””
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.