Wright v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property, including the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker; (2) The extent to which the property was acquired by each spouse prior to the marriage or through inheritance or gift; (3) The economic circumstances of the spouse at the time the disposition of the property is to become effective, ...; (4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property; and (5) The earnings or earning ability of the parties as related to a final division of property and final determination of the property rights of the parties."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marriage of Qazi v. Qazi · Ernst v. Ernst

2. ““Husband goes on to argue that it was error for the trial court to distribute to him his pension and profit sharing plan without taking into consideration the tax consequences thereof. Finding No. 34 states that the court specifically considered the potential tax liability and determined that it was ‘speculative’ and thus incapable of valuation. Here, the husband was ordered to pay wife $159,373.00 to be paid in installments of $39,373.00 the first year and $24,000.00 per year in the five succeeding years. The evidence before the court was that the parties had a net marital estate in excess of $970,000, over $300,-000 of which was in stocks and bonds which were awarded to the husband in the final decree. Husband received over $700,000 in assets pursuant to the decree and the court found him to have an annual income ranging from $135,000 to $195,000 per year. While husband may or may not have ‘cashed in’ his pension plan, the court did not require him to do so by the terms of the decree. In addition, husband was clearly awarded sufficient assets with which to raise the first installment without invading his pension. Whether husband decides to cash in his pension and incur tax liability is purely a matter of choice. Since it is entirely reasonable that husband may not do so, the trial court was correct in considering the tax liability ‘too speculative’ for valuation.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marriage of Qazi v. Qazi · Irvine v. Irvine

3. “"In an action pursuant to Section 8(a), 3(b), or 8(c) of this chapter, the court may order either parent or both parents to pay any amount reasonable for support of a child, without regard to marital misconduct, after considering all relevant factors including: (1) the financial resources of the custodial parent; (2) the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved or had the separation not been ordered; (3) the physical or mental condition of the child and the child's educational needs; and © (4) the financial resources and needs of the noncustodial parent."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beeson v. Beeson · Porter v. Porter