Shea v. Shea’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Roach v. Atlas Life Insurance Co. (1989), Hess v. Excise Board of McCurtain County (1985)
3 federal appellate · 22 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 Bishop v. Bishop · Diment v. Diment · Johnson v. Johnson · Smith v. Smith
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In any divorce decree entered after December 31, 1967, which provides for periodic alimony payments, the Court, at the time of entering the original decree, only, may designate all or a portion of each such payment as support, and all or a portion of such payment as a payment pertaining to a division of property. Upon the death of the recipient, the payments for support, if not already accrued, shall terminate, but the payments pertaining to a division of property shall continue until completed; and the decree shall so specify. The payments pertaining to a division of property shall be irrevocable. . . The Court shall also provide in the divorce decree that any such support payments shall terminate after remarriage of the recipient, unless the recipient can make a proper showing that said support is still needed and that circumstances have not rendered payment of the same inequitable”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cox v. Cox · Yoakum v. Commissioner““We conclude (the) intent of § 1289(b) is that at the time original decree is entered, (the) trial court has (the) discretion to designate all or a part, of any periodic payments as being for support. There is nothing in the statute which indicates that periodic payments which are not designated for support shall terminate upon death or remarriage of the recipient. Furthermore, the statute provides the trial court may designate such payments as being for support only at the time the original decree is entered, (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“permissive or discretional, and not mandatory, action or conduct,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clark v. Miller
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.