Longo v. Longo’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Gangwish v. Gangwish (2004), Gress v. Gress (2006)
28 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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1401 (Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986)
Relies on McCarty v. McCarty · Mansell v. Mansell · Kramer v. Kramer · In Re the Marriage of Hunt · Bullock v. Bullock
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Section] 42-366(8) logically requires that a nonvested military pension be treated as marital property in a dissolution proceeding. While military personnel do not make monetary investments in a pension plan, they invest time and personal sacrifice in order to qualify for a nondisability military pension. Spouses of such personnel share in this investment to the extent that the duration of the marriage coincides with the period of military service. As one court has noted, the future retirement pay of a career military service member who is not yet eligible to retire "is a contractual right, subject to a contingency, and is a form of property." Jackson v. Jackson, 656 So.2d 875, 877 (Ala.Civ.App.1995). Because § 42-366(8) specifically requires the inclusion of retirement benefits "whether vested or not vested" in the marital estate, we conclude that the district court did not err in awarding [the wife] a share of [the husband's] future nondisability military pension entitlement, payable only if and when such benefits become payable to [the husband].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“does not authorize any court to order a [military] member to apply for retirement or retire at a particular time in order to effectuate any payment under this section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barron v. Barron
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.