Thompson v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Deauville Corporation v. Federated Department Stores Inc (1985), Edlund v. Bounds (1992)
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 Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation · Busby v. Busby · Radford v. McNeny · Steeger v. Beard Drilling, Inc. · Ex Parte Williams
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We conclude that the divorce decree does not constitute an adjudication or disposition of the community property interest in the two joint venture projects known as Clover leaf and Mapleleaf Apartments. Such property was not brought within the jurisdiction of the divorce court so that it cannot be said that such divorce decree amounts to a bar against bringing the subsequent action. . . . “If the decree does not consider the property rights of the parties, they are unaffected by it and may be asserted anywhere and any time the occasion may arise. ... It is res judicata as to the property awarded. But the decree is binding only with reference to such property as is brought within the jurisdiction of the court and the scope of its adjudication. If property was omitted from such consideration by either, it might authorize the opening of the decree as to the property, or a separate suit with reference to it, as the divorce judgment could not be an adjudication of their rights in property not considered by the court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Buhrmann v. Buhrmann“In consideration of all of the premises, each spouse hereby releases all claims and rights, which such spouse ever had, now has, or might hereafter have, against the other by reason of their former relationship as Husband and Wife, or otherwise, excepting only claims and rights of such spouse created and outstanding against the other pursuant to the terms of the Divorce Decree rendered by the Court, or the terms of this agreement; it being the intent hereof that each spouse accepts the provisions of this Agreement in full release and settlement of any and all claims and rights against the other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Yeo v. Yeo“In the absence of a ‘catch all’ or residuary clause in the agreement specifically providing for the disposition of property not specifically described therein it could not reasonably be argued that such undisclosed property would be awarded to one party or to the other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brannon v. Randmaa
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.