Seavey v. Long’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2014
16 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Carr v. Carr · Monmouth Lumber Co. v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America · LM v. State, Div. of Med. Assist. & Health Serv. · 132 N.J. Eq. 97 - Camden Trust Co. v. Handle · Thiel v. Thiel
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In the event that the Husband shall predecease the Wife, the Wife shall still be entitled to receive the spousal benefit portion of the Plan until her death. She shall further be entitled to receive any death benefits available through this Plan and the Husband shall make appropriate arrangements with his Pension Plan to effectuate that distribution." [ Seavey, supra, 303 N.J.Super. at 155 , 696 A. 2d 102 (quoting property settlement).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In effect, the trial judge, out of concern for the disabled and obviously needy first wife, has imposed an obligation on the second wife to share her statutory widow's benefits and to support the first wife. The court has taken the property of defendant, who is not in any way a wrongdoer and does not possess any property for which the first wife, or even the decedent, could have made a claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Insofar as Miko might provide a basis for plaintiff in our ease to obtain or even share in the pension payable to the second wife, we disagree with the conclusion expressed in Miko , although we appreciate the humanity that fostered it. [Id. at 160, 696 A.2d 102 .1”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ross v. Ross
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.