Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 216 N.J. Super. 421 - Pugh v. Pugh

216 N.J. Super. 421 - Pugh v. Pugh’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
April 2000
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2000

11 state decisions

50198719902000decided

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 Kaplan v. Kaplan · Beck v. Beck · 11 Ohio App. 3d 279 - Taylor v. Taylor · Gayet v. Gayet · 10 Ohio App. 3d 253 - Fuller v. Fuller

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

  1. “[T]he agreement should be regarded as having principally an economic purpose, that is, to assure that plaintiff's interest in the former marital home is not used to subsidize defendant's relationship with a male cohabitant. Pugh, supra, 216 N.J. Super. at 425 , 524 A. 2d 410 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We are disinclined to apply the contract language in a way which conflicts with our stated public policy to guarantee individual privacy, autonomy, and the right to develop personal relationships. Id. (citing Gayet, supra, 92 N.J. at 151 , 456 A. 2d 102 ).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “only if one cohabitant supports or subsidizes the other under circumstances sufficient to entitle the supporting spouse to relief.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.