Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 307 ARK 546 - Hale v. Hale

Hale v. Hale’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2010

10 state decisions

40199220002010decided

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 Wilson v. Wilson · Warren v. Warren · Hackett v. Hackett · Williford v. Williford · 32 Ark. App. 175 - Smith v. Smith

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

  1. “The appellant is correct that Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-315 (a)(2) provides for an equitable division of non-marital property given prior to marriage but does not make the same provision for gift property received during marriage. Were we to hold that the statute authorized a chancellor to divide non-marital gift property, we would be adding words to the statute that simply are not there. In prior cases, we have specifically refused to expand the property-division statute judicially to authorize the chancellor to divide non-marital property acquired by gift during marriage. Rather, we have limited the discretion of the chancellor under the statute to the division of property acquired prior to marriage, as the statute provides. See Williford v. Williford, 280 Ark. 71 , 655 S.W.2d 398 (1983); see also Smith v. Smith, 32 Ark. App. 175 , 798 S.W.2d 443 (1990); Yockey v. Yockey, 25 Ark. App. 321 , 758 S.W.2d 421 (1988). We have previously held that property received by descent, apparently during marriage, is not subject to division in a divorce action. See Farris v. Farris, 287 Ark. 479 , 700 S.W.2d 371 (1985).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) At the time a divorce decree is entered: (1)(A) All marital property shall be distributed one-half (V2) to each party unless the court finds such a division to be inequitable.”
    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.