Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 278 N.W.2d 436 - Lien v. Lien

Lien v. Lien’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
6
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

76 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 183 W. Va. 528 - Bettinger v. Bettinger (1990), Nastrom v. Nastrom (1979)

76 state decisions

46019791980199020002010decided

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 · Bollenbach v. Bollenbach · Guindon v. Guindon · Jameson v. Jameson · Pochop v. Pochop

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

  1. “[I]f for the convenience of the husband he is permitted to make a property division by paying his wife her share of the marital property in cash in installments [,]... as a general rule any deferred payments should bear interest at the going rate; otherwise, the wife is not actually receiving the property division to which the court has determined she is entitled. There can be exceptions to this rule. A trial judge can properly set an interest rate on deferred payments at a rate lower than the going rate if the lower rate is an integral part of the overall plan for property division.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) the amount and value of the property involved; (2) the intricacy and importance of the litigation; (3) the labor and time involved; (4) the skill required to draft pleadings and try the case; (5) the discovery procedures utilized; (6) the existence of complicated legal problems; (7) the time required; (8) whether briefs were required; and (9) whether an appeal to this court is involved.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The trial judge determined that Mrs. Lien should receive approximately one-third of the family’s net assets, and that because she was inexperienced in business affairs and because he concluded that Mr. and Mrs. Lien couldn’t reasonably be expected to get along as business partners, she should receive her equitable share of the assets in cash. Became o/the large amount of money involved which created practical problems of cash availability and the tax consequences to Mr. Lien of acquiring this cash either by liquidation of assets or out of his income, the trial judge, after several hearings, devised the rather elaborate plan previously set out in detail, involving large payments over a relatively short time, deferred payments over a longer time but short enough to make them nontaxable to Mrs. Lien, and support payments over about 13 years which would be deductible to Mr. Lien and taxable to Mrs. Lien. Interest on the deferred payments would also be deductible by Mr. Lien and taxable to Mrs. Lien.”
    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.