650 So. 2d 1281 - Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
214 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 214 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably 824 So. 2d 623 - Sanderson v. Sanderson (2002), 824 So. 2d 583 - Hensarling v. Hensarling (2002)
214 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 · 639 So. 2d 909 - Hemsley v. Hemsley · 418 So. 2d 764 - McKee v. McKee · 610 So. 2d 348 - Tilley v. Tilley · 532 So. 2d 574 - Jones v. Jones
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 214 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the situation is such that an equitable division of marital property, considered with each party's nonmarital assets, leaves a deficit for one party, then alimony based on the value of nonmarital assets should be considered.”
37 later decisions quote this exact passage“Our scope of review in domestic relations matters is limited under the familiar rule that this Court will not disturb a chancellor's findings unless manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or if the chancellor applied an erroneous legal standard.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. The income and expenses of the parties; 2. The health and earning capacities of the parties; 3. The needs of each party; 4. The obligations and assets of each party; 5. The length of the marriage; 6. The presence or absence of minor children in the home, which may require that one or both of the parties either pay, or personally provide, child care; 7. The age of the parties; 8. The standard of living of the parties, both during the marriage and at the time of the support determination; 9. The tax consequences of the spousal support order; 10. Fault or misconduct; 11. Wasteful dissipation of assets by either party; or 12. Any other factor deemed by the court to be "just and equitable" in connection with the setting of spousal support.”
9 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.