708 So. 2d 354 - Bailey v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n lieu of terminating employment and accepting a retirement allowance.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 817 So. 2d 466 - Lodrigue v. Lodrigue · 791 So. 2d 800 - Zalfen v. Albright

2. “If Mr. Bailey had actually retired on the date he entered the DROP program, Mrs. Bailey clearly would have had the right to share, in the stipulated percentage, in the retirement benefits he would have received. The fact that the same amount of monthly retirement benefits was credited to a deferred-receipt account under a fictitious retirement for a specific temporary period should not change that result. [[Image here]] But just as Mrs. Bailey is entitled to her Sims [v. Sims, 358 So.2d 919 (La. 1978)] formula percentage of Mr. Bailey’s base benefits he will receive upon retirement, she also is entitled to the same percentage of his DROP account, inasmuch as both the base retirement benefits and the funds in the DROP account are attributable to Mr. Bailey’s employment and retirement contributions prior to the termination of the community.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stavinoha v. Stavinoha · 801 So. 2d 1093 - Sullivan v. Sullivan

3. “In the DROP situation, the employee spouse’s election to enter the DROP program operates, as of the date of that election, to fix the base amount of the employee’s eventual monthly retirement benefits, and this amount is credited to the DROP account monthly as retirement benefits, although the actual receipt of the funds in that account is deferred until the employee actually retires. (footnote omitted). ****** The statutory provisions governing the DROP program refer repeatedly to the DROP benefits as “retirement benefits” and fix such benefits as of the date of entry into DROP. Moreover, the statutes expressly provide that if an employee elects to remain in state employment after the DROP period, any future retirement credits earned are in the nature of a supplemental pension. [LSA-R.S. 11:450(D) ]. The latter treatment fully supports our holding that the date of entry into DROP fixes a non-employee spouse’s interest in the entirety of the retirement benefits, both the DROP benefits and the regular retirement benefits.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 757 So. 2d 696 - Karno v. Trustees of the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System