Colm v. Colm’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2007 · most notably Ohland v. Ohland (1982), Daitchman v. Daitchman (1984)
28 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 Spabile v. Hunt · LaFarr v. LaFarr · Cleary v. Cleary · Harrigan v. Harrigan · Romano v. Romano
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even more important, the statute instructs the judge to have regard for the source of the property, not as the single, or by any means governing, consideration in decreeing the property. It also subjects it to concerns about-the respective merits of the parties, to the condition in which each will be left by the divorce, to the burdens imposed for the benefit of the children, as well as general justice and equity. In the face of all these concerns the' fact that the property was decreed to a party not one' through whom the property was acquired is not an automatic demonstration of disregard of the statute. Culver v. Culver, 133 Vt. 191, 193-94 , 332 A.2d 799 (1975). The-discretion accorded the court is wide, not to be overturned without a showing of abuse or withholding of that discretion. LaFarr v. LaFarr, 132 Vt. 191, 193 , 315 A.2d 235 (1974). No such showing has been made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“to the reviewing court that it has been improperly exercised or its bounds have been exceeded, corrective action is appropriate. Furthermore, where there is a shortage or absence of findings and the result on its face appears to be unsupportable, this Court is justified in remanding for clarification and support.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Paquette v. Paquette
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.