Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 532 So. 2d 503 - Johnson v. Johnson

532 So. 2d 503 - Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
November 2008
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1408

Relies on McCarty v. McCarty · 358 So. 2d 919 - Sims v. Sims · 332 So. 2d 834 - TL James & Co., Inc. v. Montgomery · Succession of Scott · 457 So. 2d 1285 - Moreau v. Moreau

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

  1. “In Johnson , the husband was a member of the Firefighter's Pension and Relief Fund in New Orleans, which is governed by La. R.S. 33:2101 et seq. He suffered an injury and began receiving disability benefits during the existence of the community. On appeal, this court held that the benefits received by Mr. Johnson were an asset of the community formerly existing between the parties. We noted that the right to receive compensation for his disability was based entirely on Mr. Johnson's contributions to the fund from community earnings and his years of service as a firefighter. As the benefits flowed from a community endeavor, we held Mrs. Johnson was entitled to her proportionate share of the payments. After a reading of the statutes governing the New Orleans Firefighters' Pension, La. R.S. 33:2101, et seq., we do not feel compelled to follow Johnson due to significant differences in the pension plans involved in these two cases. In Johnson , the fund was made up of salary deductions from each member (clearly community funds) and contributions from the fire department. In the case at hand, the Trust is funded solely by employer contributions—no contributions are made by the members. In Johnson , the amount of benefits payed [sic] was based on the number of years of service. Entitlement to benefits in our case is simply based on a minimum requirement of fifteen years of credit in the plan. In the event of termination of employment, the fund in Johnson had a cash value. The disabi”
    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.