Salenius v. Salenius’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Omitted property. If a final divorce decree fails to set apart or divide marital property over which the court had jurisdiction, the omitted property is deemed held by both parties as tenants in common. On motion of either party, which may be made at any time, the court may set aside or divide the omitted property between the parties, as justice may require.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Carr v. Carr · Stotler v. Wood

2. “Maine is an equitable distribution state, and not a community property state. One of the principal differences between the two is the nature of the spouse’s interest in property to which the other spouse holds legal title. In a community property state, the spouse acquires a “ ‘present vested undivided one-half interest in all property acquired during the existence of the marital relationship’ ” regardless of the state of title. Hursey v. Hursey, 284 S.C. 323 , 326 S.E.2d 178, 181 (Ct.App.1985)(quoting Rodgers v. Rodgers, 98 A.D.2d 386 , 470 N.Y.S.2d 401, 404-05 (1983)). By contrast, in an equitable distribution state such as Maine, each spouse retains sole interest in property held in his or her name, subject to the right of the other spouse to equitable distribution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davis v. Cox (In Re Cox)