Rolla v. Rolla’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably Maturo v. Maturo (2010), Wendt v. Wendt (2000)
32 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
Relies on Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of Manchester · Weiman v. Weiman · Krafick v. Krafick · 13 Conn. App. 300 - O'Neill v. O'Neill · State v. Dufault
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defendant also claims that the trial court improperly determined that the assets to be distributed constituted all of the marital assets as of the date of dissolution. In support of this claim, the defendant points to the fact that the parties had functionally ceased to live as husband and wife in 1986 or 1987, dividing their financial holdings and going their separate ways at that time. The defendant also points to the plaintiff's lack of any contribution to the defendant's acquisition or growth in assets after the date of their separation. Accordingly, the defendant argues that, since the plaintiff did not contribute in any way, monetarily or nonmonetarily, to the acquisition, preservation or appreciation in value of the assets of the marital estate, she is not entitled to share in any assets acquired after that date or in the appreciation after that date of any previously acquired assets.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In the absence of any exceptional intervening circumstances occurring in the meantime, the date of the granting of the divorce would be the proper time at which to determine the value of the estate of the parties upon which to base the division of property”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the mere increase in value of property following the parties; separation does not rise to the level of exceptional intervening circumstances”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.