Schweizer v. Schweizer’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently October 2008 · most notably 7 Cal. 4th 1238 - Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994), Flaherty v. Weinberg (1985)
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 98 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Deering v. Deering · Harper v. Harper · Ackerley Communications, Inc. v. City of Seattle · Pitsenberger v. Pitsenberger · Grant v. Zich
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) “Family home” does not include property: (i) acquired before the marriage;”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“any other factor that the court considers necessary or appropriate to consider in order to arrive at a fair and equitable monetary award”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Harper teaches that a “marital debt” is a debt which is directly traceable to the acquisition of marital property. Conversely, a “nonmarital debt” is a debt which is not directly traceable to the acquisition of marital property. That part of marital property which is represented by an outstanding marital debt has not been “acquired” for the purpose of an equitable distribution by way of a monetary award. Therefore, the value of that marital property is adjusted downward by the amount of the marital debt. That is to say, a marital debt is considered under the second step of the process followed in reaching a monetary award, namely the valuation of marital property- A nonmarital debt may not serve to reduce the value of marital property. It has no function in the second step of the process. But it may be taken into consideration in the third step of the process — the determination of the amount and method of payment of the award. The amount outstanding on a nonmarital debt of a party clearly reflects on that party’s economic circumstances at the time the award is to be made. § 8-205(a)(3).”
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.