Young v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Twyman v. Twyman (1993), Murff v. Murff (1981)
41 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 Hedtke v. Hedtke · Cockerham v. Cockerham · Bell v. Bell · Cooper v. Cooper · McKnight v. McKnight
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not mean that fault must be considered in all cases where a divorce is granted on fault grounds.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“These cases further indicate that the trial court may consider such factors as the spouses’ capacities and abilities, benefits which the party not at fault would have derived from continuation of the marriage, business opportunities, education, relative physical conditions, relative financial condition and obligations, disparity of ages, size of separate estates, and the nature of the property. We believe that the consideration of such factors by the trial court is proper in making a ‘just and right’ division of the property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cluck v. Cluck“of the Husband. The Wife argues that the mention of unrepentant fault was not to justify punishment but to explain that the Husband's unrepentant admission of adultery is what caused her to lose hope in the marriage. If the Husband had shown any sign that he would stop his extra-marital activities, she would have tried to put the marriage back together. We are unable to say that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. We are not prepared to interpret the language used,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Smith
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.