Pelts v. Pelts’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 12731 · 10 U.S.C. § 12732 · 10 U.S.C. § 1401 (Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986) · 10 U.S.C. § 1405 · 10 U.S.C. § 1408
Relies on Day v. Day · Burns v. Burns · Skokos v. Skokos · Moore v. Moore · Hackett v. Hackett
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hether a retirement interest is vested hinges on several factors, including whether the benefit 'cannot be diminished by the [employer] and is not dependent upon ... continued employment.' We have also asked whether the interest was 'fully distributive upon the date of the ... divorce.' See Hackett v. Hackett , 278 Ark. 82 , 84, 643 S.W.2d 560 , 562 (1982).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nauman v. Nauman
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.