Stinner v. Stinner’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Stewart v. Thorpe Holding Co. Profit Sharing Plan (2000), 445 Pa. Super. 56 - Sinaiko v. Sinaiko (1995)
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions — followed in 10 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 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Merry · Young v. Young · 323 Pa. Super. 404 - Hopkinson v. Hopkinson · 454 F. Supp. 22 - Cody v. Riecker · Hollman v. Hollman
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The term “domestic relations order” means any judgment, decree, or order (including approval of a property settlement agreement) which— (I) relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant, and (II) is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law (including a community property law).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hogle v. Hogle“The committee intends that an order will not be treated as failing to be a qualified order merely because the order does not specify the current mailing address of the participant and alternate payee if the plan administrator has reason to know that address independently of the order. S.Rep. No. 575, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2547, 2566.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Rice“creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.