Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 W. Va. 740 - Gant v. Gant

174 W. Va. 740 - Gant v. Gant’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
16
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably 216 W. Va. 474 - Carr v. Hancock (2004), Brooks v. Brooks (1987)

44 state decisions — followed in 16 states

1801985199020002010decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on 17 Cal. 3d 342 - In Re Marriage of Dawley · 172 W. Va. 158 - LaRue v. LaRue · Hillegass Estate · Frey v. Frey · 159 W. Va. 200 - Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Doe

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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; or (2) The agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement, that party: (i) Was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party; (ii) Did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; and (iii) Did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(b) If a provision of a premarital agreement modifies or eliminates spousal support and that modification or elimination causes one party to the agreement to be eligible for support under a program of public assistance at the time of separation or marital dissolution, a court, notwithstanding the terms of the agreement, may require the other party to provide support to the extent necessary to avoid that eligibility. (c) An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The older rule was grounded in yesteryear’s sound public policy: in general, thirty years ago women did not work in the market economy; society enjoyed a consensus that favored lifetime marriage and disfavored divorce; and prenuptial agreements that limited the support obligation in favor of former wives encouraged divorce and made divorced women potential charges of the state. Circumstances have changed dramatically in the last three decades, however.... [Tjoday 58.7 percent of all married women are gainfully employed.... [W]e no longer have a society-wide consensus on the sanctity of marriage: ... as of 1983 there were 114 divorced persons per 1,000 married per-sons_ Currently divorces are being granted ... at the rate of approximately 1,200,000 per year.”
    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.