Sweeney v. Sweeney’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently July 2002 · most notably Jegley v. Picado (2002), Day v. Day (1984)
49 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 Orr v. Orr · Pryor v. Pryor · Gillioz v. Kincannon, Judge · Wood v. Wood · Carter v. State
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant next contends that the chancery court erred in granting appellee a statutory interest in appellant's Ford Motor Company and Honeywell retirement benefits. The decree provides that appel-lee receive a one-third interest in the retirement benefits with Ford but does not mention the Honeywell benefits. Pension benefits which are vested but not currently due and payable are not personal property. Knopf v. Knopf, 264 Ark. 946 , 576 S.W.2d 193 (1979). Here on the record before us, it is not demonstrated that any retirement benefits are currently due and payable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Here no emergency clause was enacted and neither is there express language regarding retroactive applicability. The act, therefore, is prospective in its application. Since the statute, § 34-1211, in effect when the chancellor’s order was entered, is unconstitutional and since Act 705, subsequent to the order, is prospective in its application, no statutory law exists to apply on remand. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Noble v. Noble
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.