Mitchell v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez (1998), 75 Md. App. 113 - Prahinski v. Prahinski (1988)
32 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 17 Cal. 3d 738 - In Re Marriage of Fonstein · 38 Cal. App. 3d 93 - In Re Marriage of Lopez · 103 Wis. 2d 327 - Holbrook v. Holbrook · Dugan v. Dugan · 103 Wash. 2d 236 - In Re the Marriage of Hall
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Bjecause the professional practice of the sole practitioner or partner will continue after dissolution of the marriage, with the same goodwill as it had during the marriage, we find that a refusal to consider goodwill as a community asset does not comport with Arizona’s statutory equitable distribution scheme. We prefer to accept the economic reality that the goodwill of a professional practice has value, and it should be treated as property upon dissolution of the community, regardless of the form of business. Wisner v. Wisner, [ 129 Ariz. 333 , 631 P.2d 115 (App.1981) ] (corporation); In re Marriage of Fonstein, [ 17 Cal.3d 738 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 552 P.2d 1169 (1976) ] (partnership); In re Marriage of Watts, 171 Cal.App.3d 366 , 217 Cal.Rptr. 301 (1985) (partnership); In re Marriage of Fenton, 134 Cal.App.3d 451 , 184 Cal.Rptr. 597 (1982) (corporation); In re Marriage of Slater, [ 100 Cal.App.3d 241 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 686 (1979)] (partnership); In re Marriage of Foster, 42 Cal.App.3d 577 , 117 Cal.Rptr. 49 (1974) (sole practice); In re Marriage of Lopez, [ 38 Cal.App.3d 93 , 113 Cal.Rptr. 58 (1974) ] (partnership); Golden v. Golden, [ 270 Cal.App.2d 401 , 75 Cal.Rptr. 735 (1969) ] (sole practice); In re Marriage of Hull, 712 P.2d 1317 (Mont.1986) (professional corporation); Lockwood v. Lockwood, 205 Neb. 818 , 290 N.W.2d 636 (1980) (partnership); Dugan v. Dugan, 92 N.J. 423 , 457 A.2d 1 (1983) (solely owned professional corporation); In re Marriage of Hall, 103 Wash.2d 236”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We believe the better approach is to consider the terms of the partnership agreement as one factor in the determination of the value of the community interest in goodwill without treating the agreement as conclusive. This approach recognizes that partnership agreements are designed to deal with particular aspects of the business, and simply do not address the considerations involved in valuation for a marital dissolution. Clauses which establish value of assets between partners may be only minimally relevant when a partner's business continues but the partner's marriage ends.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Under the principles of community property law, the wife, by virtue of her position as wife, made to that value [goodwill] the same contribution as does a wife to any of the husband’s earnings and accumulations during marriage. She is as much entitled to be recompensed for that contribution as if it were represented by the increased value of stock in a family business.”
2 later decisions 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.