Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 Ark. 194 - Wilson v. Wilson

Wilson v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
10
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

104 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Burns v. Burns (1993), McKay v. McKay (2000)

104 state decisions — followed in 10 states

45019871990200020102020decided

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 103 Wis. 2d 327 - Holbrook v. Holbrook · Dugan v. Dugan · Day v. Day · Taylor v. Taylor · Powell v. Powell

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

  1. “(1) Where goodwill is a marketable business asset distinct from the personal reputation of a particular individual, as is usually the case with many commercial enterprises, that goodwill has an immediately discernible value as an asset of the business and may be identi fied as an amount reflected in a sale or transfer of a business. (2) If the goodwill depends on the continued presence of a particular individual, such good will, by definition, is not a marketable asset distinct from the individual.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “for professional goodwill to be marital property it must be a business asset having a value independent of the continued presence or reputation of any particular individual.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Because most of appellee’s bonus accrued and, therefore, was acquired during his marriage to appellant, we hold the chancellor abused his discretion in finding that none of the bonus was marital property. Therefore, we reverse and remand this cause on this point.”
    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.