Austin v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2023
17 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Ginn v. Penobscot Company · MacDonald v. MacDonald · Raymond v. Raymond · Greenwood v. Greenwood · Estate of Jacobs
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he use of a QDRO because of the restrictions placed on pensions by the Internal Revenue Code and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). See 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d) (1999). Without a QDRO, pension benefits may not be divided and distributed to a person other than the employee to [whom] they originally accrued. See id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) whether the court’s prior judgment was ambiguous as a matter of law; and (2) whether the court’s construction of its prior judgment is consistent with its language read as a whole and is objectively supported by the record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thompson v. Rothman
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.