642 So. 2d 901 - Carrow v. Carrow’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably 753 So. 2d 1057 - McNeil v. Hester (2000), 824 So. 2d 583 - Hensarling v. Hensarling (2002)
70 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 639 So. 2d 921 - Ferguson v. Ferguson · Armstrong v. Armstrong · 639 So. 2d 909 - Hemsley v. Hemsley · 563 So. 2d 594 - Bell v. Parker · 637 So. 2d 850 - Chamblee v. Chamblee
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“will be upheld if it is supported by substantial credible evidence.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“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 relationship 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 The degree to which each spouse has expended, withdrawn or otherwise disposed of marital assets and any prior distribution of such assets by agreement, decree or otherwise; 3.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 the 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 ot”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[C]hancellors should not view equitable distribution as a means to punish the offending spouse for marital misconduct. ... Rather, marital misconduct is a viable factor entitled to be given weight by the chancellor when the misconduct places a burden on the stability and harmony of the marital and family relationship.”
6 later decisions 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.