Olson v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Neville v. Neville (2003), 211 Ill. 2d 437 - In Re Marriage of Crook (2004)
50 state decisions — followed in 22 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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1408 · 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 26 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 2002 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 1304 (§ 1104 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 415 (§ 215 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 424A (§ 224 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Flemming v. Nestor · McCarty v. McCarty · Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · Richardson v. Belcher · Mansell v. Mansell
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right of any person to any future payment under this subchapter shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this sub-chapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.”
5 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kluck v. Kluck · Jackson v. Sollie“This section shall not operate to prohibit the characterization or treatment of that portion of an annuity under this subchapter ... as community property for the purposes of, or property subject to, distribution in accordance with a court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation or the terms of any court-approved property settlement incident to any such court decree.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.