Webster v. Webster’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
26 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 659 (§ 459 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board · 84 Wis. 2d 124 - Bloomer v. Bloomer · Neville v. Neville · 601 So. 2d 534 - Pimm v. Pimm
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.
“'a spouse's social security contributions and ultimate benefits have been increased by the work of the other spouse, and ... a nonemployed spouse loses spending power after a divorce through the inability to use the other spouse's social security benefits.' [Quoting] 2A Social Security Law and Practice (Flaherty & Sigillo, Eds., 1994), Section 34:67.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“An offsetting award . . . would upset the statutory balance and impair [the husband's] economic security just as surely as would a regular deduction from his benefit check.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Instructing a trial court to "consider" Social Security benefits, as the appellate court did in this case, either causes an actual difference in the asset distribution or it does not. If it does not, then the "consideration" is essentially without meaning. If it does, then the monetary value of the Social Security benefits the spouse would have received is taken away from that spouse and given to the other spouse to compensate for the anticipated difference. This works as an offset meant to equalize the property distribution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.