Van De Loo v. Van De Loo’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Unkle v. Unkle (1986), Johnson v. Johnson (1986)
64 state decisions — followed in 14 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 A. J. Chromy Construction Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc. · Bollenbach v. Bollenbach · Durfee v. Rod Baxter Imports, Inc. · Marriage of Erlandson v. Erlandson · Jurek v. Jurek
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) is acquired as a gift, bequest, devise or inheritance made by a third party to one but not to the other spouse; (b) is acquired before the marriage”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“all relevant factors including the length of the marriage, any prior marriage of a party, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, needs, and opportunity for future acquisition of capital assets and income of each party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“As the New Jersey Superior Court stated in Amato v. Amato, 180 N.J.Super. 210 , 434 A.2d 639 (App.Div.1981): The literal language of the statute ought not limit our inquiry to the time when the compensation is received. The purpose for which the property is received should control. Insurance funds, for example, paid to replace property destroyed by fire would remain the separate property of a spouse if the destroyed property had been owned by the spouse before marriage. So, too, we must look at the purpose for which the compensation was received during the marriage to determine if it is subject to distribution. If we view the recovery here simply as the replacement or restoration, so to speak, of the physical and mental health a spouse brought to the marriage, it is like an exchange for property possessed before the marriage. Under both the common law and community property systems an injured spouse should keep funds which replace assets brought to the marriage. Id. at 219 , 434 A.2d at 643 (quoting Harmon v. Harmon, 161 N.J.Super. 206, 214-218 , 391 A.2d 552, 556-57 (App.Div. 1978) (Botter, J.A.D., concurring)); see also Jurek v. Jurek, 124 Ariz. 596, 598 , 606 P.2d 812, 814 (1980); Cook v. Cook, 102 Idaho 651, 653 , 637 P.2d 799, 801 (1981). Characterizing a personal injury recovery based on the purpose for which it was received permits separate treatment of the various components of the recovery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. Johnson
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.