Jackson v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" We believe the better view . . . is that military nondisability retirement pay, whether or not vested, constitutes a marital asset subject to division upon the dissolution of the marriage. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Harrison, 13 Kan.App.2d 313 , 769 P.2d 678 (1989); Cearley v. Cearley, 544 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. 1976); Poe v. Poe, 711 S.W.2d 849 (Ky. App.1986); LeClert v. LeClert, 80 N.M. 235 , 453 P.2d 755 (S.Ct.N.M.1969); Miser v. Miser, 475 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Civ. App.1971); Mora v. Mora, 429 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Civ.App.1968); and In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838 , 544 P.2d 561 , 126 Cal.Rptr. 633 (1976). " We believe that a benefit right, whether or not it is vested, constitutes an asset that should be shared and, therefore is subject to division upon divorce. The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas held in Mora, supra , that retirement benefits were not gratuities, but earned property rights. There, the husband had not retired from military service, but had completed over 25 years of service with over 14 of those years being served during the marriage. The court held that the husband obtained a property right, even though the vested benefits were not payable at the time of the divorce and might never be received if the husband was dishonorably discharged or died before his actual retirement. The court pointed out that the possibility of forfeiture did not reduce the benefits to a mere expectancy, but instead made them subject to division as property. "Further, in LeClert, supra”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Treusdell v. Treusdell · Thomas v. Thomas

2. “"The law is well settled that a trial court's discretionary ruling concerning property division in a divorce will not be disturbed on appeal except for a palpable abuse of discretion. Montgomery v. Montgomery , 519 So.2d 525 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987). Further, the division of property is not required to be equal, but it must be equitable in light of the evidence, considering the proper factors. Id. What is equitable is a discretionary determination by the trial court. Ross v. Ross , 447 So.2d 812 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). In determining its awards, the trial court may consider many factors, including the earning capacity of the parties, their future prospects, their ages and health, the length of the marriage, the value and type of property involved, and the conduct of the parties regarding the cause of the divorce. Lutz v. Lutz , 485 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Civ.App. 1986). In addition, it is well settled that the element of fault can be considered as a factor in property division. Linden v. Linden , 516 So.2d 675 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987). This is the case even when the divorce was not granted on the basis of fault. Mangina v. Mangina , 585 So.2d 1383 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 678 So. 2d 1160 - Bates v. Bates

3. “"retirement benefits can be mathematically ascertained. Courts have developed formulas for valuation of nonvested military retirement pay, for example, awarding ownership based on the number of months the marriage lasted, divided by the total number of months of military service that can be counted toward retirement. See Carranza v. Carranza, 765 S.W.2d 32 (Ky.App.1989). Another formula sets an amount to be paid in monthly installments, based on the number of years of the marriage, divided by the number of years in military service, times one-half the retirement pay when retirement occurs. See Bullock v. Bullock, 354 N.W.2d 904 (N.D.1984). Using this latter formula, a court can award each spouse an appropriate portion of each retirement payment as it is paid, without computing the present value of the retirement and with each person equally dividing the risk if the pension fails to vest."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 975 So. 2d 359 - Brattmiller v. Brattmiller