Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 Va. App. 511 - Johnson v. Johnson

56 Va. App. 511 - Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 23 Va. App. 690 - O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlin · 29 Va. App. 119 - Rusty's Welding Service, Inc. v. Gibson · 2 Va. App. 178 - Venable v. Venable · 29 Va. App. 673 - Anderson v. Anderson · 52 Va. App. 833 - Fadness v. Fadness

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

  1. “The obvious reason for this provision [of Code § 20-107.3(D) ] is to enable the parties to make payment of a monetary award by adjustment of their property. The legislature gave the option of this method of payment to the “party against whom a monetary award is made.” The statute makes no mention of consent, approval or acceptance by the party to whom the property is to be conveyed. However, it does make such a transfer subject to the court’s approval. We believe this provision serves to prevent unilateral action by the party seeking to make payment by the transfer of property.”
    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.