Yeldell v. Yeldell’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 335 So. 2d 5 - Shannon v. State · 453 So. 2d 1355 - US Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Dept. of Ins. · 96 Ill. 2d 432 - In Re Marriage of Olson · Continental Casualty Co. v. Kelly · Hansel v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) assign to each party his or her sole and separate property acquired prior to the marriage, and his or her sole and separate property acquired during the marriage by gift, bequest, devise, or descent, and any increase thereof, or property acquired in exchange therefor; and (b) distribute all other property accumulated during the marriage, regardless of whether title is held individually or by the parties in a form of joint tenancy or tenancy by the entireties, in a manner that is equitable, just and reasonable, after considering all relevant factors including, but not limited to: the duration of the marriage, any prior marriage of either party, the age, health, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, assets, debts, and needs of each of the parties, provisions for the custody of minor children, whether the distribution is in lieu of or in addition to maintenance, and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of assets and income. The court shall also consider each party’s contribution to the acquisition, preservation, appreciation, dissipation or depreciation in value of the assets subject to distribution under this subsection, and each party’s contribution as a homemaker or to the family unit. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sanders v. Sanders“the house is and must remain the sole and separate property of the wife” and that the trial court erred and “went one step too far” in awarding the husband “a ... share of the legal title,” i.e.,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Araya v. Keleta“husband’s substantial contributions, in the form of the mortgage payments, gave him an equitable interest in the house which must be taken into account,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Araya v. Keleta
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.