Moss v. Moss’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2020
6 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
Relies on Carlton v. Carlton · Thomas v. Thomas · Sweat v. Sweat · Hoffman v. Hoffman · Hall v. Hall
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.
“based upon the amount of child support [he] agreed to pay during the pendency of the divorce,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The division of marital property is within the sound discretion of the district court. Hall v. Hall, 2005 WY 166, ¶ 5 , 125 P.3d 284, 286 (Wyo.2005); DeJohn v. DeJohn, 2005 WY 140, ¶ 11 , 121 P.3d 802, 807 (Wyo.2005); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 2004 WY 68, ¶ 9 , 91 P.3d 922, 925 (Wyo.2004). We afford the district court considerable discretion to structure a distribution scheme appropriate to the peculiar cireum-stances of the case, and we will not disturb its determination absent clear grounds demonstrating that the court abused its discretion. Hoffman, 19, 91 P.3d at 925 . Whether the district court's property division is just and equitable is evaluated from the perspective of the overall distribution of marital assets and liabilities rather than the effects of any particular disposition. Dunham v. Dunham, 2006 WY 1, ¶ 6 , 125 P.3d 1015, 1016-17 (Wyo.2006). We generally defer to the district court's findings since it is in a better position to assess the witnesses' credibility, weigh the evidence and judge the respective merits and needs of the parties. Sweat v. Sweat, 2008 WY 82, ¶ 6 , 72 P.3d 276, 278 (Wyo.2003). We will find an abuse of discretion when the property disposition shocks the conscience of the Court and appears to be so unfair and inequitable that reasonable people could not abide it. Hall, ¶ 5, 125 P.3d at 286; Mann v. Mann, 979 P.2d 497, 500 (Wyo.1999).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McMurry v. McMurry“marital property division does not have to be equal to be just and equitable”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pond v. Pond
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.