Rose v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 9 district · 319 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 483 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Mansell v. Mansell (1989), Boggs v. Boggs (1997)
38 federal appellate · 9 district · 319 state decisions — followed in 39 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 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 38 U.S.C. § 3101 · 38 U.S.C. § 3107 · 38 U.S.C. § 314 · 38 U.S.C. § 315 · 42 U.S.C. § 651 (§ 451 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Johnson v. Robison · McCarty v. McCarty · Lambert v. People of the State of California · Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg
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 483 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'positively required by direct enactment.'”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a)(1) Payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law, and such payments made to, or on account of, a beneficiary shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Dye v. White · Younger v. Mitchell“[r]ecognizing an exception to the application of § 3101(a)'s prohibition against attachment, levy, or seizure would further, not undermine, the federal purpose in providing these benefits,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.