Erspan v. Badgett’s Empirical Analysis
647 F.2d 550 · 1981
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently March 2003 · most notably Harrell v. Sharp (1985), Shaver v. Shaver (1984)
17 federal appellate · 5 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 Wetmore v. Markoe · Francis v. Francis · Nunnally v. Nunnally · Cooper v. Cooper · Crouch v. Crouch
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““... [RJegardless of how a state may choose to define alimony, a federal court, for purposes of applying the federal bankruptcy laws, is not bound to a label that a state affixes to an award ... [Consistent with the objectives of federal bankruptcy policy, the substance of the award must govern.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“alimony substitute, support or maintenance, however termed,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Howard v. Moore · Biggs v. Biggs“[Fjactors which the Texas courts may take into account in making the division and award “include the disparity of the earning power of the parties as well as their business opportunities....” the physical conditions of the parties, probable future need for support, and educational background; ... [t]he fault in breaking up the marriage and the benefits the innocent spouse would have received from a continuation of the marriage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.