Gnerlich v. Gnerlich’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
14 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1408 · 26 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 1012 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on 173 Ind. App. 661 - Wilcox v. Wilcox · 84 Ill. App. 3d 446 - In Re Marriage of Smith · 176 Ind. App. 89 - Savage v. Savage · In Re the Marriage of Adams · McNevin v. McNevin
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"all the assets of either party or both parties, including: (1) a present right to withdraw pension or retirement benefits; (2) the right to receive pension or retirement benefits that are not forfeited upon termination of employment, or that are vested, as that term is defined in Section 411 of the Internal Revenue Code, but that are payable after the dissolution of marriage; and (3) the right to receive disposable retired or retainer pay, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 1408(a), acquired during the marriage, that is or may be payable after the dissolution of marriage."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The value of William's disability pension is readily ascertainable and susceptible to division. Its nature is no more contingent or speculative than an ordinary retirement (longevity) pensionexcept for one contingency. The benefits depend on William's continued disability. However, because Faye was awarded a percentage of each payment, her interest expires with William's. This contingency does not make William's disability pension speculative or conjectural such that it may not be characterized as a marital asset under the rationale of the McNevin [v. McNevin (1983), Ind.App., 447 N.E.2d 611 ] supra and Murphy [v. Murphy (1987), IndApp., 510 N.E.2d 235 ] supra, decisions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hann v. Hann“became entitled to these benefits because he made monthly contributions . through a disability retirement plan offered through his employer....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bingley v. Bingley
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.