Thompson v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
August 2018
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hoyt v. Hoyt · Neville v. Neville · 397 Pa. Super. 421 - Cornbleth v. Cornbleth · 113 Ohio App. 3d 24 - Neel v. Neel · 112 Ohio App. 3d 90 - Walker v. Walker
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall consider * * * [a]ny retirement benefits of the spouses, excluding the social security benefits of a spouse except as may be relevant for purposes of dividing a public pension. (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 25. - 11 - Warren CA2012-08-074 {¶ 40} In Runser the Fifth District found that a trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not order a set-off of one spouse's Social Security benefits from another spouse's public pension. At trial, the court considered the Social Security benefits but found it was not appropriate to set-off the benefits from the other spouse's public pension. Id. at ¶ 38. In discussing whether the trial court erred in not setting-off the Social Security benefits, the appellate court looked to amended R.C. 3105.171. Id. at ¶ 37. The court found that setting off Social Security benefits was discretionary and focused on the language in the statute that provided Social Security benefits may be considered in dividing public pensions "as may be relevant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. Williams
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.