200 W. Va. 139 - Pearson v. Pearson’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Henriquez v. Henriquez (2010), 200 W. Va. 15 - Stone v. Stone (1997)
42 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 45 U.S.C. § 231 (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974) · 45 U.S.C. § 231A (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974) · 45 U.S.C. § 231B (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974) · 45 U.S.C. § 231M (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974)
Relies on Blum v. Stenson · Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · 194 W. Va. 52 - Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc. · 194 W. Va. 263 - Burnside v. Burnside · 196 W. Va. 535 - Banker v. Banker
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In reviewing challenges to findings made by a family law master that were also adopted by a circuit court, a three-pronged standard of review is applied. Under these circumstances, a final equitable distribution order is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law and statutory interpretation are subject to a de novo review.' Syl. Pt. 1, Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263 , 460 S.E.2d 264 (1995).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Retirement benefits for railroad employees are governed by federal statute. . . . [A] railroad employee . . ., upon retirement, is entitled to benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, (hereinafter the `Act') 45 U.S.C. § 231 et seq. The Act's scheme provides for two tiers of benefits which resemble both a private pension program and a social welfare plan. Tier I benefits are equivalent to those the employee would receive if covered by the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. See 45 U.S.C. § 231a (a)(1) and § 231b (a)(1). Tier II benefits are supplemental annuities which, like a private pension plan, are tied to earnings and career service. See 45 U.S.C. § 231a (b) and § 231b (e). "In Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo , 439 U.S. 572 , 99 S.Ct. 802 , 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979) the United States Supreme Court considered whether an award of railroad retirement benefits to a spouse when dividing marital assets upon divorce was prohibited by the Act. The United States Supreme Court held that 45 U.S.C. § 231m specifically prohibited the division of benefits payable under the Act as property in a divorce. However, in 1983, Congress provided an amendment to § 231m which expressly permits characterization of Tier II benefits as property subject to distribution upon divorce. See 45 U.S.C. § 231m (b)(2). Notwithstanding the 1983 amendment, the holding in Hisquierdo is still controlling with respect to Tier I benefits. See Syl. Pt. 1, in part, McGraw v. McGraw , *Page 1169 186 W. Va. 1”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[u]nder the clearly erroneous standard, if the findings of fact and the inferences drawn by a family law master are supported by substantial evidence, such findings and inferences may not be overturned even if a circuit court may be inclined to make different findings or draw contrary inferences.”
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.