Becker v. Becker’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Nastrom v. Nastrom (1978), Boisselle v. Boisselle (1994)
44 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 In Re Estate of Elmer · Kamp v. . Kamp · 4 Cal. 2d 356 - McClure v. McClure · Howell v. Howell · 21 Wis. 2d 54 - Kronforst v. Kronforst
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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.” (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wheeler v. Wheeler“At first blush, Rule 52(a) appears tó except decisions on motions, other than certain motions to dismiss not here relevant, from the preparation of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The reason for this is simple: most motions are not tried upon the facts. Motions to modify divorce decrees are exceptions. A fact-finding process is necessary before it can be determined that the requisite material change in conditions has occurred. See Voskuil v. Voskuil, 256 N.W.2d 526, 530 (N.D.1977).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Reed v. Reed“. .if the court is determined to modify Rule 52(a), it should be done by the same process by which the rule was first adopted — a written proposal, communicated to the Bar and the public, and a decision to adopt the rule, made after public notice and hearing, as required by Sections 27-02-08 to 27-02-15, N.D.C.C.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Vetter v. Vetter
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.