Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 181 SW3D 676 - Altman v. Altman

Altman v. Altman’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 147 Md. App. 350 - Turner v. Turner · Johnson v. Johnson · Solomon v. Solomon · 29 Va. App. 673 - Anderson v. Anderson · Edwards v. Edwards

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.

  1. “Among the factors that courts may consider when fashioning an equitable division of a marital estate is a party’s dissipation of the marital or separate property. Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-4-121(c)(5). Even though no statutory definition of “dissipation” exists, the term has a common meaning in the context of divorce. The concept of dissipation is based on waste.... Dissipation of marital property occurs when one spouse uses marital property, frivolously and without justification, for a purpose unrelated to the marriage and at a time when the marriage is breaking down.... Dissipation involves intentional or purposeful conduct ... that has the effect of reducing the funds available for equitable distribution.... Whether a particular course of conduct constitutes a dissipation depends on the particular facts of the case.... The party claiming that dissipation has occurred has the burden of persuasion and the initial burden of production. After the party alleging dissipation establishes a prima facie case that marital funds have been dissipated, the burden shifts to the party who spent the money to present evidence sufficient to show that the challenged expenditures were appropriate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) whether the expenditure benefited the marriage or was made for a purpose entirely unrelated to the marriage; (2) whether the expenditure or transaction occurred when the parties were experiencing marital difficulties or were contemplating divorce; (3) whether the expenditure was excessive or de minimis; and (4) whether the dissipating party intended to hide, deplete, or divert a marital asset.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “provide[s] a vehicle for divorcing parties to, among other things, provide 'for the equitable settlement of any property rights between the parties.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.