Ross v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 319 N.J. Super. 591 - Raynor v. Raynor (1999), Louise Robichaud Samaroo v. Winston R. Samaroo, At&t Management Pension Plan v. Louise M. Robichaud, Louise M. Robichaud. (1999)
4 federal appellate · 8 district · 19 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 26 U.S.C. § 414 (§ 1015 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1055 (§ 205 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Holywell Corp. v. Smith · Commissioner v. Lester · American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Merry · United States v. North · Brennan v. Orban
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“New Jersey's concepts of equity cannot be applied and a QDRO cannot be entered after the fact”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even if the court is mistaken in its decision to proceed in the absence of an interested person, it does not by that token deprive itself of the power to adjudicate as between the parties already before it through proper service of process. But the court can make a legally binding adjudication only between the parties actually joined in the action. It is true that an adjudication between the parties before the court may on occasion adversely affect the absent person as a practical matter, or leave a party exposed to a later inconsistent recovery by the absent person. These are factors which should be considered in deciding whether the action should proceed, or should rather be dismissed; but they do not themselves negate the court's power to adjudicate as between the parties who have been joined.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“any judgment, decree, or order (including approval of a property settlement agreement), which relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant, and is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law .... [ 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(3)(B)(ii).]”
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.