17 Va. App. 321 - Banagan v. Banagan’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2013
13 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 Smoot v. Smoot · 14 Va. App. 558 - Gamble v. Gamble · 4 Va. App. 132 - Artis v. Artis · 2 Va. App. 508 - Hodges v. Hodges · 8 Va. App. 387 - Zipf v. Zipf
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court may direct payment of a percentage of the marital share of any pension, profit-sharing or deferred compensation plan or retirement benefits ... whether payable in a lump sum or over a period of time.... However, the court shall only direct that payment be made as such benefits are payable.... “Marital share” means that portion of the total interest, the right to which was earned during the marriage and before the last separation of the parties....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A pension is a retirement benefit paid regularly, with the amount of such based generally on length of employment and amount of wages or salary of pensioner. It is deferred compensation for services rendered. Robinette v. Robinette, 10 Va. App. 480, 485 , 393 S.E.2d 629, 632 (1990) (citation omitted), quoted with approval in Broom v. Broom, 15 Va. App. 497, 505 , 425 S.E.2d 90, 95 (1992).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Peters v. Madgiasz“pension or retirement interests embraced within the statutory marital share are presumptively marital property and the party claiming otherwise must present evidence sufficient to overcome this presumption. See Stroop v. Stroop, 10 Va. App. 611, 614-15 , 394 S.E.2d 861, 863 (1990).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Peters v. Madgiasz
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.