Hacker v. Hacker’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2014
15 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 173 Ind. App. 5 - In Re the Marrage of Miles · Loeb v. Loeb · 174 Ind. App. 599 - In Re the Marriage of Osborne · 180 Ind. App. 242 - Libunao v. Libunao · 182 Ind. App. 303 - Wallace v. Rogier
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Both of John's parents were living at the time of the dissolution. Although John is an only child and could eventually inherit the farm either through a will or under the laws of intestate succession, this potential inheritance would evaporate if, in the intervening years, John's parents sell the farm or devise the property to someone else. In addition, unforeseeable changes in the farm marketplace or in governmental policy regarding farm subsidies or the laws of inheritance or taxation could considerably change the farm's value. * * * * * Because property settlements are not ordinarily subject to modification, basing a division upon the possibility of a future inheritance might prove to be unfair in light of subsequent circumstances. While it is true that John could inherit the property next week, he could also wait decades only to discover that such eventuality will not occur.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Case law has long established that an un-vested interest in property is not divisible as a marital asset.... No one has vested rights in an ancestor’s property until the latter’s death_ Even some vested interests, such as remainders in which the spouses have no present possessory interest, are deemed too remote to be included in a property settlement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“although a trial court in a dissolution proceeding may not award or otherwise divide property not owned by either of the parties, the court may consider a present possessory interest in distributing divisible assets.”
1 later decision 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.