McCarty v. McCarty’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

113 federal appellate · 27 district · 1,678 state decisions

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 2,184 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[C]ongress may well decide, as it has in the Civil Service and Foreign Service contexts, that more protection should be afforded a former spouse of a retired service member. This decision, however, is for Congress alone.”

   16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rice v. Rice · 100 Wash. 2d 319 - In Re Marriage of Smith

2. “"... Indeed, Congress recently enacted legislation that requires that Civil Service retirement benefits be paid to an ex-spouse to the extent provided for in `the terms of any court order or court-approved property settlement agreement incident to any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation.' Pub.L. 95-366, § 1 (a), 92 Stat. 600 , 5 U.S.C. § 8345 (j)(1) (1976 ed., Supp. III) [5 U.S. C.S. § 8345(j)(1)]. In an even more extreme recent step, Congress amended the Foreign Service retirement legislation to provide that, as a matter of federal law, an ex-spouse is entitled to a pro rata share of Foreign Service retirement benefits. Thus, the Civil Service amendments require the United States to recognize the community property division of Civil Service retirement benefits by a state court, while the Foreign Service amendments establish a limited federal community property concept. Significantly, however, while similar legislation affecting military retired pay was introduced in the 96th Congress, none of those bills was reported out of committee. Thus, in striking contrast to its amendment of the Foreign Service and Civil Service retirement systems, Congress has neither authorized nor required the community property division of military retired pay. On the contrary, that pay continues to be the personal entitlement of the retiree."”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Villasenor v. Villasenor · Hughes v. Hughes

3. “"... [I]t is manifest that the application of community property principles to military retired pay threatens grave harm to `clear and substantial' federal interests. See United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S., at 352, 15 L.Ed.2d 404 , 86 S.Ct. 500 . Under the Constitution, Congress has the power `[t]o raise and support Armies,' `[t]o provide and maintain a Navy,' and `[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.' U.S.Const, Art I, § 8, cls 12, 13, and 14. See generally Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. [57], [59], 69 L.Ed.2d 478 , 101 S.Ct. 2646 (1981). Pursuant to this grant of authority, Congress has enacted a military retirement system designed to accomplish two major goals: to provide for the retired service member, and to meet the personnel management needs of the active military forces. The community property division of retired pay has the potential to frustrate each of these objectives."”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 98 Wash. 2d 46 - Matter of Marriage of Brown · 453 So. 2d 631 - Simmons v. Simmons