Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““14-05-24. Permanent alimony — Di vision of property. — When a divorce is granted, the court shall make such equitable distribution of the real and personal property of the parties as may seem just and proper, and may compel either of the parties to provide for the maintenance of the children of the marriage, and to make such suitable allowances to the other party for support during life or for a shorter period as to the court may seem just, having regard to the circumstances of the parties respectively. The court from time to time may modify its orders in these respects.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bohnenkamp v. Bohnenkamp · Nastrom v. Nastrom

2. ““X [XV] “As it relates to the various factors utilized in distributing marital property, the court makes the following additional Findings of Fact: “(A) The ages of the parties are so similar as to not warrant special consideration for either party. “(B) Due to the education and training of the parties, the Defendant has greater earning capabilities than the Plaintiff. “(C) Due to the duration of the marriage, the parties are entitled to an equitable distribution of marital property. “(D) The conduct of the parties during the marriage does not warrant special consideration for either party. “(E) Due to the financial circumstances of the Plaintiff, and her limited education and skills, together with the necessity of caring for minor children, these circumstances and necessities would require the Plaintiff to retain her interest in the Minnesota farmland and to retain a dwelling house for herself and her children, together with sufficient liquid assets, and her equitable interest in the marital property. “(F) The property to be distributed to the Defendant has a greater income producing capacity than the Minnesota farmland which is to be distributed to the Plaintiff; however, under the circumstances, it is equitable that the Defendant receive the Skol Bar and the Plaintiff receive her interest in the Minnesota farmland. “XI [XVI] “Based on the foregoing findings, the court finds that an equitable property distribution would be as follows: “(A) To the Plaintiff — due to the fact”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. VanRosendale v. VanRosendale