Lookingbill v. Lookingbill’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably 339 Pa. Super. 185 - Braderman v. Braderman (1985), Board of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement System v. Mayor of Baltimore City (1989)
2 district · 46 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 15 Cal. 3d 838 - In Re Marriage of Brown · Deering v. Deering · Busby v. Busby · 84 Wis. 2d 124 - Bloomer v. Bloomer · 49 Md. App. 392 - Ohm v. Ohm
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he dominant trend in this area of the law, however, rejects such distinctions between pension benefits when making the threshold determination of whether a retirement plan constitutes marital property and postpones consideration of the possibly contingent nature of such rights until valuing the asset or apportioning the marital property between the parties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““We declared in Deering that the fact that a pension right may be contingent upon the happening of certain events does not degrade that right to an expectancy; the law has long recognized that a contingent future interest is property. We agreed with the statement of the court in In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838, 848 , 126 Cal.Rptr. 633, 639 , 544 P.2d 561, 567 (1976) (en banc) that such contingencies should not be taken into account by the trial court when determining whether the retirement plan is properly includable in the marital estate. Deering, 292 Md. at 128 , 437 A.2d 883 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Conteh v. Conteh“[W]hen and if the [husband] shall be entitled to receive retirement benefits from his U.S. Secret Service employment, the [wife], as alternative payee, as and for marital property, shall receive a sum equal to twenty percent (20%) of any payment received by [the husband] as a result of his employment by the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division ....”
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.