Gray v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2024
15 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. § 1304 (§ 1104 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 8345
Relies on Flemming v. Nestor · Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · Krafick v. Krafick · Day v. Day · Hodges v. Huckabee
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On appeal, chancery cases, such as divorces, are reviewed de novo. With respect to the division of property in a divorce case, we review the chancellor’s findings of fact and affirm them unless they are clearly erroneous, or against the preponderance of the evidence; the division of property itself is also reviewed, and the same standard applies. A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. In order to demonstrate that the chancellor’s ruling was erroneous, an appellant must show that the trial court abused its discretion by making a decision that was arbitrary or groundless. We give due deference to the chancellor’s superior position to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although marital property is generally under state control, it is clear to us that Congress wants social security to be exclusively federally controlled. Congress preempted state divorce laws when it enacted its own scheme of social security benefits for divorced spouses. The anti-assignment and anti-legal-process provisions in the Social Security Act, with their specific allowance for spousal support, also promote federal uniformity and preempt state law. We conclude that social security cannot be distributed or used as an offset in [the] division of marital property. To do so would conflict with the federal plan and would violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jackson v. Sollie
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.