639 So. 2d 921 - Ferguson v. Ferguson’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
474 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 477 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably 639 So. 2d 909 - Hemsley v. Hemsley (1994), 650 So. 2d 1281 - Johnson v. Johnson (1994)
474 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 414 (§ 1015 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation · 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris · Orr v. Orr · Maynard v. Hill · 437 So. 2d 1003 - Albright v. Albright
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 477 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Substantial contribution to the accumulation of the property. Factors to be considered in determining contribution are as follows: a. Direct or indirect economic contribution to the acquisition of the property; b. Contribution to the stability and harmony of the marital and family relationships as measured by quality, quantity of time spent on family duties and duration of the marriage; and c. Contribution to the education, training or other accomplishment bearing on the earning power of the spouse accumulating the assets. 2. The degree to which each spouse has expended, withdrawn or otherwise disposed of marital assets and any prior distribution of such assets by agreement, decree or otherwise. 3. The market value and the emotional value of the assets subject to distribution. 4. The value of assets not ordinarily, absent equitable factors to the contrary, subject to such distribution, such as property brought to the marriage by the parties and property acquired by inheritance or inter vivos gift by or to an individual spouse; 5. Tax and other economic consequences, and contractual or legal consequences to third parties, of the proposed distribution; 6. The extent to which property division may, with equity to both parties, be utilized to eliminate periodic payments and other potential sources of future friction between the parties; 7. The needs of the parties for financial security with due regard to the combination of assets, income and earning capacity; and, 8. Any othe”
153 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[p]roperty division should be based upon a determination of fair market value of the assets, and these valuations should be the initial step before determining division.”
65 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. King v. King · Pittman v. Pittman“This Court will not disturb the findings of a chancellor unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or an erroneous legal standard was applied.”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.