Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably Finan v. Finan (2008), Terca v. Terca (2008)
27 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 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 659 (§ 459 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 45 U.S.C. § 231M (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974)
Relies on Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · Neville v. Neville · 211 Ill. 2d 437 - In Re Marriage of Crook · 397 Pa. Super. 421 - Cornbleth v. Cornbleth · Grode v. Grode
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“court is not required to accept either party's proposed valuation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Giesen v. Giesen · Taylor v. Taylor“The U.S. Supreme Court has not specifically addressed whether a state court can indirectly offset or otherwise consider the parties’ respective Social Security benefits in dividing marital property in a dissolution proceeding. However, several state courts look to the Court’s decision in Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 , 99 S.Ct. 802 , 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979), as instructing them that Social Security is not subject to an indirect adjustment through offset. However, some courts allow an indirect offset.... Most courts utilize yet another, less restrictive approach. These courts disallow an offset but allow a general consideration of a party’s anticipated social security benefits in the overall scheme when making a property division.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jackson v. Sollie“We see a crucial distinction between: (1) adjusting property division so as to indirectly allow invasion of benefits; and (2) making a general adjustment in dividing marital property on the basis that one party, far more than the other, can reasonably expect to enjoy a secure retirement. It should not invalidate a property division if a disproportionate expectation regarding social security benefits is acknowledged in the court’s assessment of the equities.... We do not think the federal preemption legislation requires state courts under these circumstances to purge so obvious an economic reality in its assessment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jackson v. Sollie
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.